but i am also campaigning in new hampshire and south carolina and florida andt nevada. i want to do well in the early primary states but also get the dollars they still it is to win the nomination. it is not trying to surprise people by doing better than expected in one or two states could do well in all states to get delegates. this is about getting the nomination and batman spend time in the states and whether it is a wise strategy your not we have spent a lot of time raising money. we raise money so i can go out with advertising to get my message to peopletean across iowa, north stationth hampshire and south carolina that frees up time to gogo a around the state to maken sure we have the resources not just to do well once orces, twice but to get thel

nomination.go . .y will support you? >> you know, i realize i have an uphill climb to get the nod, the number one spot in iowa. i'd like to get a spot. but if i don't get that spot, i'll be happy if i do well. i'd like to do well. again, i had delegates. a lot of the early states are going to award delegates on a proportional basis. i want to get my fair share of that proportion from the very beginning and then take a larger, larger share as time goes on. >> is this campaign different for you in iowa than it was four years ago? had to change now and forever in the way we do this process in this country? >> you know, it seems to change every cycle. i don't know that i can tell you what the next cycle will be like.

my guess is that will be different than this. but this cycle for me -- i have met people throughout iowa and therefore had folks who supported me before client to do it again. and so the last time i had no one. so i decide a lot of time getting to meet all and send them out to be part of the team and hoping they'd be with me and straw poll the caucuses. and this time i start with a bit of a base for change in how must time. it's allowed me to spend time in other states as well and generate support for folks who don't really know who i am. i do think also one of the things that just changes the importance of debates. the audiences were to base a much larger than they were last time around. last time rudy giuliani, movie star fred thompson -- he

would've thought there would've been -- [laughter] tv stars, tv personality. i mean, these are famous. and i was out 1% or 2% starting off last hindsight to just go up issue leather and get no and this time in better known for good or evil as the case may be. but that's allowed me to make sure that i can hopefully be successful here getting support, but also get support in other states on the road. >> you talk about debates and tv personalities and immediately think about donald trump. tell me why he decided not to participate in the defeat. >> in the month of december we had requests for x, 810 debates and we all met inside how we can work her schedule? where will i be campaigning and they said we can do to debates in december and keep up with their fundraising and campaigning. and we picked to debates and

well after we announced those, the folks at the trump today said would like to host one, too. we said we are befuddled our calendar. i respect donald trump and the organizers at newsnight. they're obviously a very important conservative organ and i've nothing against their debater against the other debates that were proposed. but we can only do so many. and i joke that i think the time is coming soon where people are going to call their local station and say please return to the regularly scheduled programming. i don't know how many debates. someone said the other night huckabay said we have 14 or semi-debates and forums. i mean, i think we've heard he had more debates and forums than we had last time through the whole process. so there does come a point where people feel it's okay, i assorted seen it enough. there's also a concern that if you had that many debates that

the questioners began to ask more and more arcane questions that are really the questions that are front and center in people's minds. and that may not be the right process. so for us december made sense. you're be one of them. [inaudible] >> exactly right. and in january, maybe two again. maybe three. time will tell. >> some of the candidates for the republican nomination positive sense that the weight to what this country's problems is going basically with the wrecking ball into washington d.c. and to destroy the federal courts and congress and the presidency as it's been managed under the current president. what is your take on that approach? and what is your philosophy of

governing that the federal level? >> well, heated rhetoric generates a lot of support on a temporary basis, but we've got to fix the country. there is no question, that there are needs for reorganization will eliminate programs. i combined 15 different agencies insider health and human services health and human services department about the mandatory grouping. but that doesn't mean i eliminate all the things they take. i just found a way to work together. congress has been a difficult body to get to act on key measures. but in my view, that is because of lack of leadership in the white house. we've had the same structure of government for a long, long time. a certain various times in the past. right now when a crisis crisis and economically. and with the right leadership they think we can make it work.

do we need to change washington and the nature of the discourse in washington? absolutely. and this president, despite the rhetoric has been missing in action. they came off in the first weeks in office. and they put together a stimulus package which they sign with the ovonic kare health care plan, which is also something that was devised and worked out without as much traction from him that i might expect it. three years then, we know the president has said medicare and social security are fiscally unsustainable. but three years then he has made no proposals to make unsustainable. i find it a very unusual presidency that where the white

house that has not reached across the aisle, work towards republican leaders, battled it out in private, refrained from attack and there might've been able to lead. the country -- i mean, i hope you will recognize. >> what would you do differently? >> i will tell you specifically. but i remember the beginning with a stimulus. he said look i want to work with republicans on a stimulus. i want their input. the republican leader cantor called me among others to come testify before a group of republicans in congress and later views about what we should do for the economy. make what may now headed hp was also there. we testify together. on the day we were there testifying, nancy pelosi introduced the democratic plan. it's like we are here and it's clear that no interest whatsoever. obamacare came along.

in every way possible, the american people said we do not want obamacare. they elected scott brown in massachusetts, a republican in the most liberal state -- among the most liberal state in the nation. they did not want obamacare. they wanted no input from republicans. there were plans for bipartisan plans. whenever senator bennett and senator wyden put together a bipartisan plan pushed aside. from akin tell, this white house has stood aside and let nancy pelosi and harry reid ran the show. how would i do it differently? i was lucky enough to be lucky and quotes where the state is 85% democrat. but time is some lessons. they figured out from day one of going to get nothing done if they attack these guys on a personal basis. the speaker of the house in the senate president have to have respect for me and i for them. he went and met them in their offices. we established a case of needing

every monday and one of our offices. we rotated. i didn't say i'd the governor come to my office. beside each other, got to know each other and talked about challenges going on in the state every week, all of the records. none of it never leaked. they didn't like it, i never leaked it. we let her hair down. i remember on one occasion, one of the leader said to me, look, this bill we are pushing is what i know wild about, but you've got to give your cover so i can stop it. he's got to fight a second push back against my constituency. we had that kind of open discourse upon another. i never attacked them. we talked about differences on issues, but there was no attack. and the results of all of that was we had enough respect for one another that we did a lot of things that were quite successful. we balanced the budget every year for four years. we didn't raise taxes. we built a rainy day fund of over a billion dollars by the

time i left despite a $3 billion budget shortfall in my first year. we held the line in education. there were some people who said, do not implement this requirement is you can't graduate from massachusetts high school unless you pass the graduation exam. i said no, i'm going to hold firm to that. and they stood by me on that. issue after issue were able to work together. >> you think you could at the same influence that the republican leadership in u.s. senate and in the house? >> and the democratic leadership i presume you mean. >> they're pretty independent. >> people are very independent. i can assure the leaders in the massachusetts state senate and house of representatives are quite independent people. there are places we disagreed, places i was unsuccessful. but we had enough respect for each other and i worked hard enough on a personal basis that we were able to make progress on very important measures, including for instance her health care plan.

this was done against long odds that we could accomplish something of that nature. no other state in america has been able to do what we did. her education system is now number one in the nation. this is republicans and democrats working together. i can't guarantee that everything i want to do in washington will get done. but i can guarantee that i will focus on getting that job done rather than getting reelected or pursuing a partisan agenda. i am not a lifelong political figure, as you know. i've run for others of us before. i like winning better. my career was in the air. and i administration takes the country and get on track again because i'm very concerned that if we stay in the track we're on, we will be italy or greece.

and 56 years we will face the same trauma that they're facing right now. and the consequence of an america in distress is virtually impossible to calculate. no one can bail us out. and i'm concerned about the trauma that so many families feel today that are out of work. i'm concerned the catastrophe that would exist if we fell in two the italy, europe, ireland to stress. and i'm concerned about protection of freedom long-term good >> he talked about programs he would eliminate and specifically what those ian howells he would, you know, reduce the federal deficit. >> yeah, yeah, there are two parts of the federal government that i think we have to address. one is the income statement and the other is the balance sheet. as their business terms you're

familiar with. but the income statement may come at the annual budget is what we had to cut spending in my view. there are three parts of that. one is to eliminate programs. and the easiest to get rid of are the ones who don't like like obamacare and that takes about $95 billion a year by the fourth year of the next president's first term. hopefully that's me. and then there's other programs. the national endowment for the arts, humanities, and track, the public broadcasting. as a long list of programs many people like. some of those i like myself. but the test for me is, is this program so critical that it's worth her weight money from china to pay for a? right now a lot of things we are doing we are funding by borrowing money from other people who will demand interest in payback at some point. and so for me this is a very important test. is this program critical? i will eliminate a lot of programs, even those i like because of that test. number two, there are programs

we need to keep in place, but they could be read far more efficiently if returned to the states rather than rent for the federal level. one of those is medicaid, the health care program for the poor, worry take medicaid dollars, for instance iowa received in the past. implant with a cpi plus 1% say iowa come you craft your own program for caring for your own poor. we're not going to mandate you covered how you cover them. new structure that in the way you think i scared you of decay time to organize for granted that nature. and by the way, just that i medicaid -- making the change in medicaid but cpi plus 1% is a hundred billion dollars a year for years now. the other programs, training programs. there's 47 different workforce training programs that have been put in place in the federal government to report to the different agencies. gao did an evaluation of those programs. they did not find any of them to be affect this.

these are billions of dollars of training programs. i would take all that money, bundle it and send it to the states and say you craft your own programs to train your own work for us for the jobs that exist in your state as opposed to having the federal government tell you how to read this programs. i would look at other programs related to helping the poor and candidates but also could be returned to know whether that's housing vouchers, food stands, other programs where we can return these to the states because it's different being poor in ios than massachusetts and michigan and mississippi and let states be the home for this kind of programs. >> with health care reform, how you will you ensure millions of americans? >> item onto which is the way because in my statist list is craft their own programs. but stays cracked a program that

works for their own state and return medicaid dollars to iowa. iowa will then have resources to care for the uninsured and poor. that is -- iowa solution look different than what we did in massachusetts and learn from each other in the laboratories of the u.k. then called will provide models for us to help people become insured. there's also things that can be done at the federal level. so i replaced at the federal level with a couple of things. one, i allow individuals to purchase health insurance on their own on the same tax advantage basis that exist now for corporations. we discriminate against individuals who want their own health insurance. you folks probably get your insurance through this corporation. if you want to buy it on your out en masse by the way the tax advantage. the deduction to the company to be altered by insurance. see you get a tax, if you will come a tax subsidy by getting insurance from your company.

if on the other hand are a sole proprietor running a business out of your home, you have to pay for health insurance in after-tax dollars. i want to change that. i want to level the playing field and make it easier for people to other insurance. people might say i'd rather buy me a chair and then had to register by it for me. and that's a choice you can make. that's one change on the rebels want to make sure we provide for the concerned of preexisting conditions. people shouldn't have to worry they will lose their insurance if they change jobs or if they become ill or they are laid off or whatever. so you have to cover those things. those things i would insist that the federal level. let me go on. i'm mentioned fixing the income statement. the other side of the balance sheet. our balance sheet problems, $62 trillion of unfunded promises as medicare and medicaid -- excuse me, medicare and social security and other entitlements including medicaid.

social security is relatively easy analytically to make balanced -- fiscally balanced. medicare is a tougher one. and with regards to social security, i would for the next generation, not the current generation, for them things stay the same. but for the next generation was slowly increase retirement age and also lowered the growth rate of benefits for higher income social security was the pants. for middle and low-income social security represents, that has to do with the weight index to say the same. higher income people have higher growth rate. that balance is social security. then there's medicare. [inaudible] >> but i do in that regard is this. in my tax plan i eliminate for anyone making $200,000 a year or

less. i eliminate any tax on interest dividends or capital gains. so in effect people create their own effect because there'll be no tax on their statements for middle income americans. over to medicare, we had a program for some tendency no cosmetic. vantage, where people have a choice of traditional fee-for-service medicare or private insurance. and that is the choice that they have. that exists already. which, by the way, when it was being discussed it and people said this is privatization of medicare. no, people have a choice of a private plan, but they also keep traditional medicare. my plan takes that idea and says we are now going to provide that for the next generation. we're going to give people a premium subsidy and they can purchase whichever product they want, either the private plan for the traditional medicare fee-for-service plan.

and that takes advantage of a few of the concept of money. vantage, which exists right now and by virtue congress adopting a plan to grow those premium support payments over time that a controlled rate, were able to make medicare cost effective and not break the bank and make sure to sustain long-term. so you asked a simple question and giving you a long answer. getting america's fiscal house in order is not a quick soundbite answer. it's other things to do to get her income statement in mind when we finally balanced the budget and several things we have to do to get our balance sheet, meeting our long-term obligations in line. and the plan i laid out does that. >> are there any cuts in military spending in your balancing the budget? >> yeah, there are a number of inefficiencies of government itself that will have to be addressed.

and i will -- does exist in the military as in other agencies. i will go after those, capture those. there are defense programs that i think are insisted upon by various congresspeople who have a favorite project of some of those programs that should be eliminated. in some cases various weapons systems. i anticipate that money however will not go to paying down the budget deficit, but the money will be used to update our navy, updater for us, bring in an additional 100,000 active-duty personnel and provide the benefits for veterans they deserve. >> nonet cuts to the defense? >> i anticipate nonet cuts. we are at 3.8% gdp for the military. and i think we have to keep at approximately 4% of the gdp for the near-term. for the military. by the way, let me give you the overall numbers. federal spending as a percentage

of gdp is about 20 cypress. and the bass department of defense budget is about 3.8% of that 25. vendors also wartime costs. and i should clearly communicate that as their conflicts in afghanistan and iraq way down, there will be savings in those areas and that will be reduced. >> are you okay with the timetable we are using to why nosedown? >> the final date in afghanistan as it might view the appropriate day to set as a target. which is 2014. the 2012 pulled out of the surge troops i think has been accelerated by three months for political purposes. and i think that's a mistake. i think the pull out of our surge troops in afghanistan should have been in december as the commanders requested.

[inaudible] i was talking about afghanistan there. i hope that got that right. the surge troops in december 2012, not september 2012. they think the september date is the political date and it puts our troops and a withdrawn though during the fighting season, which i think is dangerous. with regards to iraq on the course we follow the bush timeline with one exception. that is president bush and i believe others anticipated we would have an ongoing force the summer between 10, 20 and 30,000 to help in the transition. president obama secretary of defense suggested that would be the case and they were unable to negotiate a status of forces agreement to out of 10, 20 to 30,000 troops remain which is a failure in the. does the wind down in iraq appropriate? yes. and the money from those things, which is quite substantial, funny from afghanistan and iraq, that nea do not keep in the

military. that in fact does disappear. >> opposing same-sex marriage, what is the basis of your opposition about what you do about it as president? >> the basis of opposition is i.t. that the ideal setting for reason a child is right there is a male evolve. i believe marriage is the relationship between a man and a woman and i support the concept. the action that i take as president depends in part upon the state of play in washington. the people there and what options it is. certainly i defend the defense of marriage act, which the current president has refused to defend. i believe the defense of marriage act was well constructed and should be maintained. i would like to see a national amendment defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. but that was tried maybe three or four years ago. i don't think that likely to

receive the necessary support, at least in the near-term. >> how do you feel about serving openly in the military? >> srd occurred. i'm not planning on reversing at this stage. >> but you're comfortable with? >> i was not comfortable with making the change during conflict by complicating features of a program in the middle of two wars going on. but those were sir brady down and moving in that direction at this stage that the longer presents that problem. >> sensitive to our time together, let me ask you a quick question. but at the differences between you and speaker of the house gingrich? weirded termer numbers are surging and there's an awful lot of undecided voters. primarily differences between the two of you. >> well, let me step back and say, what is that you're looking for when choosing a president? and you have to think about that every four years as you think about someone to endorse.

in one part is what are their ideas and views on issues? that's an important part. i like my ideas better. and then issues, he and i disagree and i like my position better than his position. i'll tell you of some of those sorry. that is one measure. the other measures tell me about the person's capacity to the period has the person ventilator before? what kind of job they do? what do the people around and about that job? what is the enterprise that they let? how did they do under their leadership? i've had four occasions to be a leader. i grew up in a home with a dad who is a leader. i learned by watching him. within a fast run a to run a company that comment to distress. was able to help turn it around. then i started my own company and made it one of the most successful of its kind in the world. then i says to go out and run the olympics in salt lake city when i got in trouble and that

became a success. in each of these cases. you don't do these things by yourself as a leader bergson other people to help make it successful. i came to massachusetts at a time of difficulty the state. were able to turn the seat around to make it more successful. i've had those experiences. i hope it you and others look at the candidates say how did he leave? what do people learn and think about that experience? what are the measures of whether he is successful in that role? pilot back in our presidents and think what made ronald reagan a great president? what made jfk a great president? what made dwight eisenhower, one of my friends favorite presidents, doesn't get enough credit. teddy roosevelt and john adams and went and washed them. what made these people presidents? is not necessarily they have the best answers and issues. although they are pretty good in those things. but they were leaders and they

confronted challenges that america faced with sobriety and wisdom and judgment. there were men of her, vision that were trusted by others and had the capacity to lead. that i believe is an area where you will be able to look at the various candidates and say who has been a leader and who would be the best leader in a time of challenge? there are other differences. i've had the leadership experience. i've also spent my life in the air. speaker gingrich has spent the last 30, 40 years in washington. nothing wrong with that. it's just different. i think that having spent time in the tour in understanding how come and go and buy businesses grew or why they shrink in how you compete globally. i think that experience is essential at a time when the battles -- i put in quotes, the battle we face are not military so much as they are economic as i look over the coming century.

our hope our military is so superior no one even thinks of testing again. arbat also be economic. i understand how economy works at the level of job creators. i think that's a factor that's important. and then of course there's the issues and policy position, with regards to medicare. i agree with "the wall street journal." the romney plan is better than the gingrich plan. that's a pretty big distinction. i disagree with the speaker thinking we should eliminate some parts of child labor laws so kids could clean schools. i don't think that's a great idea. i saw the speaker had a measure that i read about, which was to put a permanent colony on the moon tonight where materials presented. i think we've got some other parodies before we do that. even talked about a series of mirrors we could put in space to later highways at night. i've got some better ideas for resources. so we have differences on issues and ideas and i respect the

speaker is a bright and capable guy. who are very different people. and my background is we follow very different paths. i happen to think at a time like this summit is spent their career in the dirt and who is lead time and time again in the area and also in the governmental sector has by far the best chance at defeating the president and fixing the country at a critical time. and i said this at the outset, but i'm really concerned the president believes there's something wrong with the way america works in the sky to transform and change it and turn it into what i call an entitlement society. i'm afraid that that is the wrong way to go. we have to be a mirror of society. and if their places of unfairness and there surely must be, the mutts fix those. those are the differences. i'll mention one more. i think everybody who has an

adopted the idea there should be no tax and interest in digital games. my own calculation isn't that what the case, for anybody, and i would've paid no taxes for last 10 years. because all my income is from interest dividends and capital gains are neither would locate or warren buffet and so forth. my view is the place we need tax relief is for middle income americans. that is why my capital gains, interest and dividends tax reductions for middle income americans. and that is where i think the hope is needed most. >> excuse me, governor. i've been accused around here being a conservative. and occasionally -- i'm not so sure you're going to say that. some i talk to, my friends don't dislike you, but they look at your record and they don't trust you to be a reliable

conservative. how do you convince them? to have a couple weeks to do that. >> they will get a chance to read my book. they should remember is the guy that ran four years ago as a conservative alternative to john mccain. mike huckabee and i were both really not as conservative folks, but my opponents try and characterize me in ways that are obviously an advantage and i do the same to them. i'm not going to cry about the nature of politics. but four years ago i was seen as the conservative candidate. nothing has changed my position. and just as conservative today as it was four years ago. >> how can you convince them? is not taking. >> is issue four issue. her hats pointing out that newt gingrich said the popeye and plan was a right-wing social engineering and i said is a big step forward and ran the same page. hopefully that will convince them. newt gingrich on global warming

and something about climate will change he supported cap-and-trade. i oppose cap-and-trade. on immigration. he and i have previous there. my view is more conservative than his view. so far we've had a pretty good feel. i would've been ranting and contrasting myself self-determined caner at kerry or michele bachmann. and now it is newt gingrich. so we will finally talk about contrast they are and hopefully people will take a close look and say gosh, mitt romney has been the guy who has been out there fighting for conservative ideals for some time. >> sort of a questioning of your position comes maybe from how your positions have either changed or evolved over time. and the question might be, how do we know that mitt romney we have today is going to be the one that's going to be in the white house? and when i change again?

>> the issue abnormally confronted with his abortion. sometimes by the way people at other issues. others that i haven't changed on. for instance, we continuously say you change your position on. no i didn't. i pat the same position since the beginning of my political career. i am in favor of providing for gay people and discrimination based on orientation. i said from the beginning i oppose same-sex. a civil union if it's virtually identical to same-sex marriage. and they said zero you change your position. no, that's the nature of politics. but i did change my view on abortion and you change the first time that governor the legislation really raise this issue because i thought i could see things the way they were. look up on governor won't change anything related to abortion. and then a piece of legislation came to my desk they were going to redefine when life begins as opposed to be in that conception

and number two, we'll allow the creation of embryos for purpose of experimentation and destruction of the embryos. and i could not find a piece of legislation like that. that was not leaving things the way they were. so i vetoed pieces of legislation and read an article in "the boston globe." how many years ago? four, five years ago. 2005? six, seven years ago. i said look, i am pro-life. i face this issue. and adamantly pro-life and as governor of massachusetts, every issue that came to my desk that related to abortion i can clearly on the side of life. i was awarded by the massachusetts citizens for life. their award. and so, i have a record. it's not something that happened just before the election. i have a record. >> is there any abortion you would accept?

>> yes, in the case of, and test a risk to the life of the mother. i believe in the circumstances that abortion should be legal. >> that is the only thing you changed your mind on click >> i can imagine over 20 years with hundreds or thousands of issues are not something i didn't learn that i was wrong on that i changed my view on. in the business world, you don't admit you're wrong. >> would not be a better response to the accusation you're a flip flopper? as they have changed their mind. >> there's no question. for instance on abortion, i thought i had the right position until it actually confronted me and said now that i see this in the light of creating new life to destroy it, i can't go along with it. and that led me to a change in position. i'm sure there's other places a virtue of experience i concluded

i was wrong. >> if you had to do it over again, what you do with the health care plan exactly the way it is in massachusetts? >> it never was exactly the way he wanted it in massachusetts. i vetoed measures in the health care plan overturned by the legislature and actually the way was implemented. it was different that we had implemented if i was governor. but what i've done in massachusetts plan that got everyone insured without raising taxes? yes. it was the right step forward. not perfect. things i wish i could do differently, things i wish the legislature would do differently they are. but the plan they're his favorite three to one by the people in this state. it cost the state about 1.5% of the state budget, the plan we had there. it was supposed to cause no additional money at all but the plan i oppose. they added features that made it more expensive. i would have done that.

if i could go back and be governor i pull it out. elections have consequences and new appeal to choose people who hopefully do the right thing there. >> to your support the concept of an individual mandate and part of the health reform? >> i support the concept of states being able to calm but first it's rather than the federal government impose a one-size-fits-all it takes away the rights of state to craft programs for their roommates. we didn't massachusetts included to mandate something we thought would work well for state and its out with the 8% of people who were uninsured. for 92% of residents, nothing changed. their health care options and so forth, nothing changed. only the 8%. but obamacare, health care changes for 100% of the people. not only that, the issue of taxes than half a trillion dollars they get added.

medicare gets cut by 500 billion. this is something the president is going to hear about because the only person i know of to ever cut medicare as president to bomb about $500 billion to fund obamacare. and republicans are talking about how to preserve medicare and make sure it is an option for people down the road and make it fiscally sustainable. i don't know any among republicans is talking about cutting it. the only person this has cut medicare for recipients as president obama. and so this is an issue i am looking forward to debating with the president, with them by the way if he doesn't like my plan is saying you're going to have a choice. you can choose a private plan or traditional medicare. it's your choice, whichever which one you want. which execs now for people in medicare advantage. you're going to have that choice. and mr. president under that plan, were able to keep medicare financially sustainable.

what is your plan, mr. president? you've been in office for three years so far. what are you planning on doing to make sure that medicare survives and is fiscally solvent? and i just find it amazing that we have a president with an issue that big, seeing what is happening around the world with nations that can induce fiscal distress not proposing plans that actually solve our needs in medicare, social security, medicaid and the overall economy. >> sorry to push the point, but the medicare advantage plan, the gao and others cost more than traditional medicare. how does that save money to encourage people to get private medicare? >> the premium support payments will be set by congress and there's a number of ways of doing that. you cannot grow by a set percentage. to come you could have competition among various entities and choose a rate base

on what you're seeing in competition. as the brookings institution heritage foundation, liberals and conservatives came together and say we need congress to set a budget for how much is spent on medicare. in the same thing with other entitlement programs. that the last of a premium support amount. again, higher for poor people, laura for wealthy people and they can then choose which plan works best for them. >> should religion or faith or spirituality play a role in all in this whole process? we had governor perry and recently -- a little bit ago exactly, talking about the president waging a war of religion. obviously we've had a lot of conversations about social and spiritual issues. does religion and spirituality play a role in the selection process for you? >> well, i think people want to have a president who they believe it is a conviction that there's a creator and looks to providence for guidance.

that may change someday, but i think that is generally a perspective of many people in this country. i certainly feel that myself. i don't think the particular faith that the individual should become an issue in a campaign. again, it affected the people to decide what they want to do on their own. i think campaigns would be unwise to make a particular faith an issue in a campaign. but i believe that by and large we are a people that believe in a creator who would like to have a president who would be of a similar view. that isn't to say that people who don't believe in a creator to make contributions to the country. but i think -- i think wakely at our next president will be a person of religious grounding. >> anybody else? >> well, in your most recent campaign ad made something of the fact you've been married to

the same woman for her -- >> 42 years. >> is that a direct shot at newt gingrich has had three marriages? >> now, those actually question the debate and to visit with what i've done in prior campaigns. when i began prior campaigns they run an ad that talks about my family, just picture my kids, wife and me so people get to know us on a personal basis. sometimes in a campaign all they see is a person debating. you get the impression that they are just -- i don't know, a technocrat or does she person or debater. i want people to know that i am a dad, husband, that i am in this because i care deeply about my kids in the next generation. >> should people consider the fact that newt gingrich has been married three times? >> i'm not making that an issue in the side of that not found in i've raised in the debates. again, i don't give people a counsel to they consider and

races. i hope that they look at in this space as i respect his ideas for the country and our capacity to lead based upon our experiences of leadership and our background that we would come from the terms of this type jerzy been engaged in. >> in your book come you read a lot about the dangers by islamic jihad. what do you do differently as president if you don't think the current president is doing to protect national security? >> that is a long list. probably the greatest single threat from a radical violent jihad is some as a nuclear iran because i feel it will find its way into the hands of hezbollah, hamas or other surrogates. and in that case, if they were used, it would be catastrophic. and i think the president's management of your ram has been woefully inadequate.

he has taken way too long to impose tough sanctions. i would've impose crippling sanctions long ago. one of the areas that i think was most disappointing was when the president decided to give rush at their number one foreign policy objective, which was removal of our missile defense sites in poland. he did not -- an exchange kiwanis and the part of russia to join into crippling sanctions for marion. had he done so i palooka could've pulled chime in. i don't think the chinese want to be the only nation in the world blocking sanctions against iran. sweet deal to put in place crippling sanctions. secondly when dissidents took to the streets when i put in the shadow stole the election there he had nothing to say. he said i don't want to interfere with iranian politics. it's like really? and then, i think finally that we should end -- we should have

gone after the iranian diplomats and some of their senior leaders, including ahmadinejad and turn them into the pariahs they are on the global stage. i think ahmadinejad should have been a vacation for genocide. we should put pressure on them like we put on south africa. during apartheid. this should have been just front and center, hammering day in and day out. and finally i would've hoped we would have created a perception and reality we have developed military options. i don't think there's anyone who thinks that america has prepared military options at this president would be willing to take to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear powered nation. and i think we should have those options available. i can't describe precisely what they would be because i have not had discussions with the three leadership at this point.

i think for a rant to be dissuaded from nuclear folly requires sanctions, pain around the world as there are people trying to travel and a recognition that the united states may well take military action to stop their nuclear plants. you asked about jihads. i was was the centerpiece, which is a rant. go admire bradley, jihad is, nigeria for instance, will go after a certain part of the country and begin to expand. i would have what i call special partnership forces, were retake very small footprint military advisers and writers with intelligence officers and special forces officers and personnel and provide them to nations like nigeria if they were going to help your own troops and military root out these radical violent jihad is and keep you from being overrun by these folks.

that happened in the philippines some years ago. we put just a few hundred of these special intelligence and special forces personnel into the philippines, working with their military and really routed to jihad its efforts there. the strikeouts in and now i think they're up to one or 200 years so it does have an impact. i would rather be -- let me tell you this. a decision to employ canonic military power is a decision one would take with great trepidation and caution and turn. putting america's men and women in harms way is a very weighty matter. and so taken action to try and prevent a circumstance where we had to act in that feature is my view is very high priority. though helping nations on their own. i look at the record. i spoke with former secretary

schultz. he said in the reagan and, we send advisors and helped other nations deal with the ram issues and battle these problems before they became conflicts that required the world's involvement. and that is something i try to do with the special partnership forces, which is to be will to provide hall. the president, for instance, something i agree with. he said men and women to help battle words resistance army. that's not exactly the same as she hot his son, but it is still a virulent and malevolent force. i support that. i support the idea of a small number of people who have significant impact to present something, which can be very much opposed to the interest of america as was the interest of the civilized world. >> governor, why do you suppose

americans have never chosen as president someone whose main qualification was executive experience? what you think is different this time? >> i would -- i would if we have a broader definition of executive experience than people -- than people like eisenhower would fall in that category, you know, we've chosen people whose primary experience has been in the private sector. that may not have been the feature that was being communicated at the time of their campaign, but ronald reagan's experiences in the private sector far longer than government and the same is true for others. i think right now there is a recognition that what we face is a world which has been changed by a globalization of our economy and that america's economy is have to become competitive to continue to lead the world.

after the second world war, we were so far ahead of the rest of the world. germany had been decimated, japan had been decimated. we were the center of the world and had them for a long, long time. and now we say gosh, we are in a plane filled with other tough competitors. china being among them. its elite in this country to a position where once again we are highly dead and most productive in the most competitive and we are adding jobs as opposed to see a job sleep, that can happen and i think the american people recognize we need someone to understand the economy. what we are going through right now is the most of your economic distress we have seen since the great depression and having someone who understands the economy, both for the short-term stress and for the long-term need to compete in a world where the global integration of our economies is underway as i ain't in the mind of the american voter a more relevant issue for

qualification than it has been in the past. i think most people feel -- if they don't come i hope they wake up to it, but a lifetime in washington is not necessarily the right answer to get our economy going forward -- i think the president is a nice guy. i think he's in over his head. i'll think he understands how the economy works and how it is america's economy has outperformed any other in the world. i think he thinks if he makes us more like europe with the government taking more of our economy it will make us stronger. it will make us weaker. we don't want to become your eye. europe is that working there. so i think someone who has the kind of back when i do is actually what america needs right now are the be doing this. >> gray. sensitive to the time, really kinetic calendar, sir. your three and half more weeks before caucus goers had next january night. we are kind of taking a look to

candidates and position. kind of a closing statement. tell us why should you earn our endorsement and why should caucus goers show you their support on january 3rd? . .. and capacity. i believe that background is essential in our president, and sometimes we don't agree with

someone based on our issues. i look at past presidents and i disaggrieve with them on issues but i see them as leaders, and rarely-the issues we talk about in the campaign the issues that really define the presidency. we're talking about issues -- they end up getting swept aside by something that's completely unexpected, and you want a person who has demonstrated the capacity to deal with difficult circumstances, to lead in those circumstances, and has been able to create success where failure was a realistic option, and i believe i have demonstrated that. had i led and failed, i wouldn't be doing this. i wouldn't be asking for your support. but i've learned the lessons. i haven't succeeded at everything i've done. i've lost twice in campaigns. you learn from failure, too. not every business i invested in -- bank capital, the business

i started, there was some businesses we invested in, i worked hard to make them successful and they didn't. i've learned from failure as well as success. but the businesses i've led myself and run myself have all -- the enterprises i have run myself or helped run, have all been successful, in part because of the experiences i have had. succeeding and failing. so i would appreciate greatly your endorsement, your help. this is -- i can't guarantee i'm going to win in iowa. i'm pretty darn sure i'm going win the entire battle, because there will be enough time for my message to get through, for the distinguishing features my ground -- background and -- to be understand by the american people. i can't promise you can take that to the bank but i sure am. >> thank you very much, governor.

>> thank you. >> very excited. [inaudible conversations] >> backing away from -- >> oh, no, no, i fully support john sununu and everybody says things in their open ways. amount i'm focusing on the distinction between newt gingrich position with regard to medicare. that's what i'm focusing on. i'm very pleased and honored to have john sununu's support and his outspoken effort in my behalf. >> thank you. >> thank you so much.

>> it's a pleasure having you here, sir. >> where did you grow up? >> wisconsin. >> yeah? >> iowa. >> iowa. >> iowa. [inaudible conversations] >> great state of ohio. >> midwest. >> wisconsin. >> kansas. [inaudible]

>> spent 30 years in texas -- >> the star telegram. >> covered aviation and energy. >> i tell you. kind of a little off the subject but really not. medical technology and what's happened in texas in the last decade in particular, has been just really fascinating. when you talk about our state's economy, back in the '80s, '84, right before we dropped off the cliff and went into a rather substantial and relatively lengthy recession, gas in texas was 14.7% of our goes state product, and today it's less than 7%. about 6.5%. the gross state product, and it's grown, but that gives you an idea of the total diversification of the texas economy over the course of the last 25 years. in the last decade in

particular. we announced a new applied cancer science institute at md anderson a week ago last monday. it was basically a pickup and move out of harvard to md anderson. so, -- we're seeing some just great work. it's really early, but one of our intentions is to try to make texas the adult stem cell center of the country, and maybe even of the world. just fascinating things going on. i actually had -- when i had my surgery done the first of july, they used -- harvested my own stem cells, and used them back,

and i healed up very quickly. and we're seeing results with the closest -- just fascinating. that not what we came down here to talk about. whoeveron your staff does science. all of the above. really fascinating things going on. >> why don't we get started. i am rick greene, editor vice president of the news with the des moines register here in iowa. and we thank you for being with us today. we have texas governor rick perry, purr seeing the republican presidential nomination. this is ore board and we're honored to have you here. we want to give you the floor to make opening comments about things that are important to you. >> you may not exactly -- our

communications director, silting -- sitting over there, gives good advice, and -- >> how is the campaign going? >> it's a most interesting process, and having run statewide in texas, you think you're ready for a national campaign until you actually -- people say, man, running a statewide in texas, that a big state. that's true. but it's sure not as big as america. so, just managing a national campaign is really an interesting process, but the other side of that is that 11 years of chief executive experience, in particular

governing experience, pays great dividends as we talk about why i want to be president, and what i bring to the table from the standpoint of the experience standpoint of the argument can be made that the current president, his lack of chief executive experience, his on the job training, if you will, has one a drawback to him, which i happen to agree with. running the 13th largest economy in the world, if texas were a stand-alone entity -- has a great number of challenges, and we have to deal with particularly bordering a foreign country, and our number one trading partner, and a country we have had a long and most interesting and generally very

positive relationship with, but the challenges of the border, securing the border, et cetera, which a lot of other governors don't have to deal with, with those types of issues. so the 11 years i've been the governor of texas, i think has prepared me to deal with a host of very complex issues, which it's on the economic side or whether it's on the foreign policy side of dealing with various and sundry countries, and we had a group of -- from -- in the office last monday, and as they are looking to texas to put an office there. obviously they're very oil and gas oriented, and talking about building a pipeline across turkey, into europe, to

supply -- give europe another supply of energy rather than having to rely just solely upon the russian gas. so, the whole foreign affair side of being a texas governor is kind of an interesting aspect of what i deal with, whether it's traveling to other countries and almost exclusively economic development-wise. obviously we're not -- i did through the years sign some memorandums of understandings with other countries and texas. israel is an example of it back in the '90s when i was the agricultural commissioner. so just a little taste of the life experiences of dealing with the foreign affairs, that it's a bit different than what a number of other governors would deal with, and certainly different than most of those that are on

the stage with me who are also asking for the people to consider them for the nomination. i want to touch on the three aspects of the policy i've laid out, and then we'll open it up and you can fire away. the first -- we got in the race the 13th of august, considered to be relatively late to inesque ourselves into -- inject ourselves into the process, and six weeks later we laid out our first policy, and it was on energy and jobs, and i know we'll talk about ethanol. i'm in iowa, so i know we'll touch on that. i'm not going to use this time for that. we'll -- i should say i am a "all of the above" energy individual from the standpoint of, we need to have a very broad

portfolio. but what i focused on in the first policy paper was opening up our federal lands and waters for exploration. i think only 8% of our proven reserves on federal lands and waters are being used today, and so there's a substantial amount of energy -- over 300 years worth of energy in this country that we could use. the saudi arabia of coal, and using that coal and having the innovation to be able to use clean-burning coal -- i'm still a fan of nuclear energy. obviously, sited in the right places, and being able to process the fuel rods after the use of the rods, but our technology in america has allowed us to find resources we had no idea were there. ten years ago the idea that all

the shell gas -- so i would suggest to you there are probably still substantial amount of energy that technology and innovation will allow us to be able to discover, produce, and use as a domestic source of energy. so, that i talked about on the policy -- a million-plus jobs just right off the bat. pulling back the regulations. over the last five year since '08, that have stifled job creation. and then rebuilding epa into an agency that is actually pro-jobs and pushing back a number of these environmental decisionmaking processes, regulations, to the states. i trust the people of iowa, your governor, your legislature, to

make decisions. one tax fits all -- the clean air act -- and i -- somebody saying they're not for the clean air act. it's done it work. but we have now an agency that is creating so many regulations, and the cost of those regulation and, frankly, the benefit we're seeing is very minuscule at best. the second thing i laid out was tax policies and how to deal with the budgets, how to deal with the economy, the 20% flat tax, again, mortgage deduction, charitable deduction, local tax deduction, do away with cap gain. put it on a post guard and send it in. that it. 20% of that, and -- did i knock

it off? sorry about that. make your job better. excuse me. so, -- then on the spending side, obviously, i've had 25% years of dealing with a state budget, either as an appropriator, state agency head, lieutenant governor and now governor of the state of texas. we have a balanced budget amendment in the state of texas, and it's important we worked toward balanced budget amendment for the united states as well. it's the most serious way to deal with long-term budgetary concerns that people have. the reduction of spending, and i laid out some jobs, but i'm the only individual who has laid out a budget that will be balanced

by 2020. 18% of the gross domestic product is where we're headed to, and then on the corporate side, just a straight 20% corporate rate, gets us down to -- that's about the -- excuse me -- the global average in other countries is approximately 20%. so we chose that so that we would be competitive. ours is either the highest or the second highest corporate rate in the world right now. so there's a lot of disincentive for companies to be growing and expanding in the state of texas. and all of that is on the web site. i'm not going to sit here and use that -- i want to end up with the third policy we laid out, and that is to overhaul washington. there is some ideas in there that are -- some would say provocative. when i talk about a parttime congress, and i think it rolled some people back on their heels,

what do you mean, a parttime congress? it will work, and it will work because today washington has become so self-centered, so self-important, from my perspective, and the people basically make a living being united states congressmen. their salaries are at three times the average of the american family. make it parttime. let them go home and have jobs back in their communities and live with their citizens and come and take care of the business that needs to be taken care of, and i will suggest to you, there are a lot of models for it working across the country. it's called state government. 13th largest economy in the world in texas. we meet for 140 days every other year. we balance our budget. we take care of issues, and then those member of the legislature,

that are only paid $600 a month -- go home. do their lawyer work or veterinary work or they're physicians or retired teachers or whatever, we have that make up the microcosm of our state, and it works. we balance our budget. they go home and live under the laws they passed. a parttime congress, i think, would go a lock -- long way towards not only making it less contentious in washington, dc but also give the american people confidence that the members of congress are really more in tune with what is going on. so, substantially reducing the size and the scope of washington and those agencies. even some that i couldn't remember the name of.

but that's -- again, i want to open it up and allow y'all to ask questions. but that's the policy side of the most important issues that face this country, is getting our economy back, getting people to work, getting the confidence back in the entrepreneurs so they feel they can risk their capital and have chance to have a return on investment. that's how you get the 13 plus million people who are out of work, an opportunity to have a job and the dignity to take care of their family. the way that america, again, can be considered a force to deal with. whether at it on foreign policy or militarily. because if we do not first get our economy back on track and growing, then these other issues become even more problematic for us because we lose or role in the world as being the strongest

economy, the strongest military, the influence on foreign policy and events around the world. so, with that -- >> well, it's interesting you want to talk about overhauling washington, or the economy, creating jobs, and protecting the things so many iowans care about. but you just recently did a $1.2 million ad in this state, and we have seen it and there's half of that focuses on showcasing your faith and what you describe as the president's war on religion. i guess we would want a better explanation, what the message or backdrop? does this really zero in on the issues that are most important to americans and iowans? >> i'm introducing myself to iowans. for 20 year as the agriculture commissioner, and then lieutenant governor and governor, i've had 20 years to

introduce myself to the people of the state of texas. obviously having five months to introduce yourself to the people in new hampshire and iowa and south carolina and florida, which are the four -- there's obviously a tactical reason for zeroing in on iowa, and we know what that is. but it's introducing yourself to those people, who is this individual? what makes that individual texas, if you wail? and my faith, and this is nothing new. the idea that i have issues that have resonated with me personally, and my faith, is part of who i am. prior to that, obviously, we laid out our economic side of things as well. so, i think americans do want a president who is not afraid to

say, here's what i believe in, here's who i am, i am consistent, whether it's consistency on economic issues or consistencies on issues of my personal faith, and values, and that's the message that i'm intending to relay to the people of iowa, is, here's what believe in. and by and large my christian faith does characterize me. whether it's making decisions about economics, for instance -- i think the dignity of being able to have a job to take care of your family, from my perspective, is part of my faith, that relying upon government to make decisions that are best made by you and/or your family -- those are values that i hold very dear, and i think serve not just the people

of iowa but the people all across this country well. i do disagree with this administration, that it's the private sector individual who would be better served, whether it's economically, or whether it's issues of social concern, that they make those decisions, and then there are clear issues of what i believe in that are in conflict with the administration. >> do you believe he is waging a war on religion? what we're doing -- explain that more to us. >> i do. when you see his appointment of two -- from my perspective inarguably activist judges, whether it was -- um --

montemayer. >> sotomayor? >> they're both both activist judges and that's an example of my concern about -- i believe the supreme court should not be making legislative decisions, and telling americans how to live, whether it's about prayer in school, whether it's -- you can celebrate christmas. those are decisions that should be left to the states or to the individuals to be making. the justice department who is defending this ministerial exception, i think that is a

direct attack on our people of faith and churches and basically saying that you cannot discriminate, if you will, someone who doesn't believe what you believe in hiring and firing of ministers and their staff. i wrote a book on boy scouts called, "on my honor" and gets into the issue of whether or not scouting should be able to restrict an openly gay scout master. very private sector organizations. that should be their call. and you have them spending substantial amounts of money defending lawsuits that have said, no, you have to -- and

those are my beliefs, and i am consistent about them. i don't try to meander through and make all sides happy. i do think that this president is conducting what i consider to be an attack on traditional religious organizations under traditional religious values, by >> i'd like to take this one step further. you said in the iowa leader forum -- this is not quite an exact quote, a direct quote, but deep in the soul of every person there's a hole that can only be filled by jesus christ. >> that's correct. >> i am not a christian american but i am an american, and i vote, and i find that to be rather an exclusive notion.

i don't have a hole that can only be filled by jesus christ. so you're not speaking for me or to me, and i just wonder if you don't think that you're excluding certain people who are not christian when you say that. >> i tell you what in my faith i believe. one of the great things our founding fathers did in that first amendment was to say you had freedom of religion, and i defendant -- defend that with my life if required, and i have sworn to uphold the constitution as a veteran of the united states air force and the governor of the state of texas. your faith belief is your business. ...

when that hole is filled by jesus christ. that's my be believed. you choose another route, you choose another religion. we have very diverse religious groups and different individuals in the state of texas. i respect them as citizens and

human beings and that is their decision. i can't -- the way about me to judge you or to judge anyone else, i'm talking about my faith and of those that have chosen the christian pathway. >> as president you have to represent all of americans, and by saying this president has declared war on religion, some people in this country who are of those other divers face might read that as he would declare war on their religion but not you're own. >> they would be wrong is simply how i would say that straight up. >> you talk about state rights in terms of defending the constitution. you don't see a role for the federal courts to you know formally interpret the first amendment to defend religious

rights in all 50 states? >> here's what i see happening with the first amendment and this goes back to 1962 in that case where you can't have been organized prayer to an almighty god. i'm not a lawyer so i don't study these cases in debt, but the idea that the court is telling us whether or not we can have prayer in school is a bit offensive to me. that should be a decision that is made at the local level. it's one of the reasons the life called for the doing away with the department of education. i had no idea why the federal government was engaged in telling the states how to

educate their children. i think that is a waste of money and a waste of effort for washington to be one-size-fits-all or worse yet picking winners and losers in various states when in fact that is a state responsibility to educate the children in their states', and there will be people who come up with very different ways and governors and legislatures who are thoughtful and want to have that competitive work force and be in the place where businesses move because there is a skilled workforce. they will pick and choose which of those programs will work best for their states, but again, i go back to our founding fathers freedom, not freedom from religion --

>> i think about how we get around excluding folks. as governor of texas you have called for a day of prayer during an economic crisis. for some that don't share your faith or religion that was the governor of texas was calling for a did. would you call for this in the country for example? >> my faith is one that lets look at our history and what george washington or thomas jefferson or abraham lincoln which are three rather powerful members of our either founding fathers or president who had a great impact on this country and they all made statements about how could you do this job without having a strong faith and an almighty creator?

so the idea that i wouldn't would be counter to hawaii am. if americans want to elect a president who basically says look, i'm not going to -- i'm not going to let my feet intervene in anything that i do and from my perspective it would be a bit scary. i want a president who is faithful and believes that there is a greater being who has an impact of free day in this world and is engaged in the activities my faith teaches me this is an all-powerful creator that when a bird falls from the sky, he knows it coming and i believe that and that is part of hawaii

and i'm not going to change that. if people decide listen, you know, your religious faith scares me off, my religious faith hadn't got in the way in texas making us the most economically powerful state in the nation. as a matter of fact, i think it brings comfort to folks who i believe that your economic condition in life is a biblical effort to give people the opportunity to take care of themselves to not have to rely upon government, to give the individuals the dignity to have a job and take care of their

family. >> just to clarify on this point the day of prayer or permitting prayer in schools are you talking specifically about christian prayer or nondenominational? >> it's not the government's business to be telling folks that at the state level. obviously if a school is a jewish school and in dallas texas that school should be able to do that. >> the issue here is with public schools. >> the independent school boards that oversee those decisions are not government. again, the idea that we have to be so politically correct but there's one family that says i don't want my child -- that child ought to have the freedom to sit over there and played tic-tac-toe or what have you, but the issue is that for

washington to tell a local school district that you cannot have a prayer and a time of prayer in that school i think is offensive to most americans. i trust the people of the states to make those decisions and the school districts to make those decisions better than to take an elected frankly unaccountable judges and it's one of the reasons i've called for the end of lifetime appointments to the federal judgeships in that term. >> can you talk about your ideas on health care and white texas ranks number one in the country for the uninsured? >> that is a decision the people in texas have made over the years and there's a difference between -- i know folks like to pitch out the number one and uninsured, but people have

access to health care in texas, some of the best health care in the world as a matter of fact when you look at m.d. anderson and what we talked about as we started this process here people have access to health care. the people of the state of texas have said this is how we want to deliver that health care. there are some restrictions in texas of how we would make more insurance available because we have been not allowed to have wafers that we ask for in the federal government which goes to the real key difference in the current administration when it comes to the program of medicaid cut the states come up with the innovative ways to do health insurance programs, the different selections for the different menus if you will of the insurance.

medicare is the -- and i will give you three examples. i do think what paul ryan and some of his colleagues have offered up for medicare transformation there are some pretty wise move some of the different types of insurance and again people can pick copayments, i think it's important for everyone to have some skin in the game if you will so that everyone -- and it can be a skill that moves up and down and speaking of indexing for medicare we should index the individuals, but there are a number of ways of which we can make health care insurance more

available, but in the state of texas no one is -- no one is not covered -- covered is not the right word, no one has access to some of the best health care in the world and the legislature through the election of the citizens have put into place programs that do not require insurance or make it available in some cases. that is a natural segue over to this whole individual mandate. >> so in texas you don't need health insurance? there's enough infrastructure that 25% of your people don't have health insurance? you don't need health insurance? >> i think that we would have more health insurance if we didn't have the strings attached

ipad having health insurance for those that want it is good public policy but health insurance with the strings attached that we have seen from washington, d.c. is too expensive and the people in the legislature say we are not going to spend those amounts of dollars and whether it is going to federally qualified health clinics or whether it is going to emergency rooms, people have the access to health care. the insurance issue is another issue. we have more people injured in texas if we block granted? i would suggest yes and substantially more so then you've got to have the freedom to implement that program and we don't have that today. >> on your postcard their it clear how fill out that program

say 20% of your income is that what you're saying? would >> i'm saying if you did that to your mortgage insurance and torture of a bowl to the culture -- local taxes, tax goes away, obviously important to audio and any state that has substantial the agricultural interest the tax would go away and i don't know if i said dividends, talks would go away as well, and then you take 20% of that number and that would be your personal income. >> what about family that doesn't own a home and does not have capital gains liability? do they pay 20% of their income? >> yes. >> that somebody like you that

owns a home -- ka >> rebuilding. there is an act of arson and 05 and 07 so we haven't been living for four years. >> i did have a conversation with my daughter so i had homeownership. someone that has the investments and the income level to have all of that gets those deductions by the family that doesn't with 20% on their total income, and i am describing a low-income family. is that the system was put in place? and that does not seem unfair to

you? >> what seems unfair to me is the system that we have today where between $40,500,000,000,000 it spent on tax collections that could be reinvested in this country to create jobs and better paying jobs than with those individuals are having today. i think this is all tied together with creating the confidence in this country where entrepreneurs know they can raise their capital and have a good chance to have a return on the investment, and to keep more of what they work for and that is my goal is to create an environment in this country where more people are at work and get to keep what they work for so no one is going to make the perfect tax structure but i

think i have laid out as the simplicity of the tax plan noble gift tax reductions it is all across almost every sector that i do believe in the fairness of life laid out here because the goal of that tax system is to create an environment in the state where people have the confidence they can create or have a return on the investment more americans will be at work is that particular point in time and that is my goal. i think that from an economic standpoint is how we pay off the debt. it's how we grow economically. on the corporate side one thing i didn't mention i will put out there is money that is offshore

today approximately $1.7 trillion. allowing a period of time that can come back in at 5.25%. let me say from a low-income i believe the old system in place for some period of time. i haven't had the conversation with a columnist the other day what is that period of time, and i admit i don't know. but let's talk about what that period of time is. so if he were a low-income family and you wanted to stay in the old system for the earned income tax credit, you could. you could choose that. that's the choice. most and i would suggest a vast number of people will choose to go to a simple 20% flat tax.

>> talk about the difference in where people's income comes from, the people who work, punches a time clock. they would pay the 20%. the person who has the big nest egg from data or grandpa whose income derives from capital gains or dividend some -- >> with nothing. i'm sure you can find an individual or some small number of individuals that meet the characteristic, but again, i don't think anybody is going to be doubled to create a tax system that does not have

somewhere an inequity my goal is to find the simplest most straightforward vacancy of the most money and allow people to keep more of what they work for and that's the reason i leave that plan out. islamic would be to apply to everybody regardless of the source of the income. >> you could make the argument of would be simpler. i chose this particular -- we look at a lot of different -- i looked at the fair tax at length this is what i found to be the most saleable because the fact is i've been in this business long enough to know i've got to pass it and protection i hope

will not get in the way of good. >> we spent an awful lot of time with this editorial board kind of heckling from what we hear and i was saying in general but washington is broken. we've seen such a huge divide between the left and the right, republicans and democrats, the partisanship is at an all-time high. talk a little bit about if he were elected how could you change that? what have you done to point to success in terms of bipartisan support? >> for 11 years i -- 11 years i was the governor dealing with the bodies that were in some cases almost and equitably divided between democrats and republican and in 2006, i

believe 2007, we had substantial numbers of democrats in the texas house, and in 2003 there was a good specific set an example. we passed the sweeping tort reform in the nation in 2003. that was the first time that there was a republican house, republican senate, republican lieutenant governor, speaker. yet, as we pass that piece of legislation, wanted to put it in a constitutional amendment, the tort reform, so that it wouldn't be litigated for ten years. to clearly say this is what the people in the state of texas want, and it was dealing with capping noneconomic damages in the turn of $50,000 per event

come hospital nursing home so that you wouldn't have these huge judgments and i'm going to put that in the constitution. we had to gather between democrats to do that and i think that's a good example of how i dealt with both democrats and republicans. texas is probably 55, 45% state when you look at the break down. maybe 5644 democrat republicans. i think we are of a democrat. i never met a republican until i was probably 25, but we are really not about the d.c. bar's in texas as we are

philosophically conservatives and liberals, and washington is broken, and i don't think washington is broken because of the r&d, i think it is broken because it has lost touch with what is going on in america and we have allowed the special-interest to the when i opened the newspaper and i read where $7.7 trillion secretly have gone to wall street financiers to bail them out even on known to congress, that gives me greater consternation about what is going on in this country and whether or not democrats and republicans are trying to one up each other on such an issue, and that is the reason i think it takes an outsider to come into

that environment who is willing to pull out of the veto pen and feet with a piece of legislation that has earmarks that if there is a bill that spends money that we don't have to veto it, and i'm not going to washington, d.c. to try to -- i understand historically in my life when we work with both political parties i get that 25, 26 years of my life, but that's not the biggest concern to me. the biggest concern to me is we have a system in washington, d.c. that is broken. i mean, what the republicans did with t.a.r.p. and bailing out

wall street was just as corrupt from my standpoint what timothy geithner and fannie mae and freddie mac -- what is going on in washington over the last 20 years there are some great books out there that have gone back and reconstruction. reckless endangerment i think gingrich and morgan san -- there's another book, jimmy stewart is dead, economist -- incredibly corrupt -- and i would suggest to you fraudulent activities that are going on in washington, d.c. that are a great more concern to me on the

economic side them whether or not i can get nancy pelosi and paul ryan to sit down and agree on a particular piece of legislation. that i think we can do, but the bigger issue for me is someone who will walk into washington, d.c. and the type of person that is part of the list of wissman or who has been in converse or is in converse and basically stand up and declare that we are going to do construction washington, d.c. because they have put this country in great peril economically. >> governor bush said the 11 years ago exactly the same thing when he was running for the caucuses that he was a united non-divider, he didn't use those words, but that he could get both sides to work together, he did get both sides to work

together. in texas as you have described he called himself an outsider, and promised very sincerely i'm sure that he could solve the same kinds of problems that you are talking about solving. how would you do that under these circumstances? the senate would say that it's hopeless. >> i'm not a cynic. i don't think it is hopeless. i think george w. was looking at a substantially different time in the country's history. we were balanced budget will. we were in pretty good times economically. i think the american people were not particularly concerned about -- i don't recall what the unemployment rate was in 2000, but i know it wasn't what it is today.

so, the american people i think are substantially more attuned and more supportive of someone who truly will walk into washington and overhaul, and a ventricle been governor was talking about overhaul in washington, d.c.. talking about getting democrats and republicans to work together, and i will leave that for what it is. i'm not particularly interested in to going into washington, d.c. and getting people to sing together. i'm interested in going in and try leedy constructing what is happened over many years, and it is going to be a difficult fight. i don't try to be pollyanna should at all. it will be a very difficult fight. it will require the president

who is willing to spend a lot of time travelling across the country using whatever political capital they can put together to pass a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution and at the same time not to pass the balanced budget that calls for the part-time congress. it's that particular point in time if you do change washington forever. schenectady's and ours to make all that happened? you can't do it alone. >> by a understand that he might have some conversations with congressman and women, who have said will you kind of put a cork in it about part-time legislation? [laughter] and i've had others that stand up and say you know what, you're right, but it's not them that i'm particularly concerned about, it's their constituents, and i do know what their constituents are in and the vast majority of the time and when they really think about part-time legislation i don't think that there will be as big

a pushback as what initially when a member can -- members of congress i hope are not any different than the rest of the country. they just go to washington and observed by that culture and the special-interest but then have a job back home and work to do that would make more money than what they're doing as a united states congress, and i think it is also a way to it is kind of unnatural term-limit affect on congress as well i don't know what the average tenure here in iowa or texas is. i'm probably going to say it's around seven or eight years to go back some one else comes in i

frankly don't -- i'm not too concerned about what the congress loves me or not i'm concerned with the lead this country back on track. i think i've laid out a plan that does that, and the american people as they look and see there is very consistent in their lives when it comes to these issues and that would fit that bill. you're pushing meshaal bachmann now for first place coming off the straw poll when what you think has happened since then -- we had four people out leading there may be one or two changes

before we get from january 3rd and i would readily admit that our campaign didn't go as smoothly and as positively as i would have liked and the errors i've made whether they were on the debate or what have you and i've asked americans give me a second look let me look at my policy and those were not laid out until the mid september at that particular point in time when they're falling in the polls again. i think americans are starting to an iowa in particular starting to take a different number, taking another look and they're finding out about me i

was the newest and on the block on august 13th and 1 of the reasons i got in the race is because i didn't see anyone that the republican voters were really excited about and i became the person they were excited about for a while. >> i'm curious how you came about making the decision on the hpv vaccine and what does that say about your leadership style? >> we've been in a continuing discussion about what texas state government's role should be defeating cancer in 2003 we passed a constitutional amendment that funded at

$3 billion, 300 million so cancer research obviously come to anderson and in the tools we can use to conquer these diseases that are really impacting people's quality-of-life, taking the loss lives, impacting their families. i've been very intrigued with and supported through the years. h-p was one of those. and as it was brought to me as an effective tool i made a political error and how i took it forward but i still believe that parents and our young

people should have access obviously to that. when i put that in place with an executive order it had an opt out. i felt comfortable that the opt out did speak to the issue of parental rights and subsequently found out that it didn't speak to it in a strong enough fashion. two things i would do differently. i still would go forward with every tool we have to defeat these cancers. i was on to the legislative process and how am often. >> we need to wrap this up. we are about three and a half weeks away from january 3rd and have a debate tomorrow night. the editorial board has a lot of things to contemplate the next few days. tell us why should you heard our

endorsement and why should i know of voters support? >> i hope you all are looking for a consistent individual, not someone who would be questioned about where are you going to be on this issue? i've been in public long enough that i've got -- this is a good story and a bad story, you have a record. people know what i believe, people know how i'm going to respond almost any issue. they know that my record on job creation is i will use the word unsurpassed from the standpoint of many of the other candidates on the stage. and when i talk about job creation this is about

understanding the private sector is where the job creation is created. a government can even be an impediment or it can lower hurdles, taxes, regulations, etc.. that is the key issue for this country. who is it that has the executive governing experience that can go in on day one and put into place policies that will get americans working. i've done that with my energy and jobs plan. i've done that with than having to deal with congress on the taxes, on spending. but a great amount of impact can be with the administrators and the staff goes administrators to bring into the government, and i feel very confident that as

iowans and hopefully the board makes the decision of that vision, that track record and that consistency is what you as citizens in this state and as members of the editorial board and people in the state of audio are looking for thank you for. have a good day. >> we have a good run in the morning. [inaudible conversations]nformae

upcoming events, look at the insert in the program today. and it is my pleasure and privilege to introduce our speaker today. it's a very good time the hear from janet napolitano because she's just returned to the united states. janet napolitano is the third secretary of the department of homeland security. the. dr. phil, obviously, founded -- the department, obviously, founded after 9/11 tasked with keeping us all safe and secure. she's just returned from a whirlwind trip to paris where she was participate anything the g6 plus 1 interior ministers and security ministers meeting and then a trip to the gulf in doe what, dubai and ab -- abu dhabi, and she'd like to talk about the role of international partnerships in homeland security. janet napolitano. [applause] >> thank you.

well, thank you very much. good morning to everybody. thanks, terry, ask thanks to the council on foreign relations for having this session here today. i'm excited to join you. i've just returned, as was said, from a very productive trip to europe and to the middle east where we advanced a number of critical issues with our partners. um, and one of the questions i am frequently asked when people hear i have been overseas is what exactly does the homeland security department do abroad. and the answer is, quite frankly, a huge amount. because in today's world the nexus between homeland security and security abroad cannot be decoupled. we live in a globalized world. it is connected by complex finishes this which -- networks in which the movement of people and goods and ideas never stops. and threats to our domestic

security both physical and economic do not recognize national boundaries. it's the interconnected nature of travel and trade and commerce that means a vulnerability or gap across the globe can impact security thousands of miles away. so whether it's a printer card ridge from yemen -- cartridge from yemen, a traveler from nigeria, an unregistered boat coming from central america, the threats and the opportunities from all corners of the world are my daily work. our domestic security, thus, is inextricably linked to the rest of the world. it is a shared responsibility among governments, the private sector, individuals and communities. it is a global enterprise. and the challenges faced by the united states in this regard are not unique to us. interior ministers, home secretaries and other security officials around the world

confront them. the shared challenges present a chance to build mutually-beneficial partnerships and to leverage resources to strengthen the safety and security of peoples around the world. this is particularly true where mutual economic opportunity can be enhanced by shared security responsibility. let me put some granularity on this. let me give you some examples of multilateral initiatives we have undertaken over the past several years. one, we have been working closely with the international civil aviation organization on an initiative to strengthen the global aviation system against ever-evolving terrorist threats. this effort culminated last year with the adoption by 190 countries at the icao general assembly on a declaration of

aviation security which, in effect, laid a new foundation for a global aviation security system. at the same time, for more than a year now the department of homeland security has been leading a global supply chain security initiative to protect the vast amounts of goods and commerce that traverse the globe every day and that drive our global economy. we work closely with the world customs organization, the international maritime organization and icao. and what do these initiatives look like in practice? it mean that is the wco at the united states' urging has created something called program global shield that enables customs services around the world to alert each other to suspicious shipments of precursor chemicals used to make explosives. we've made dozens of seizures in this regard stopping just last year 33 metric tons. when it comes to securing the global supply chain, our work

was already underway when we saw the attempted terrorist attacks on cargo operations out of yemen in october of 2010. following that incident, the director of the tsa, john pistole, and a team of inspectors immediately went to yemen to assess cargo security and to see how we could help make it more secure. we have provided threats -- or training, excuse me, not only to yemen, but indeed, around the world to help secure the cargo network. along with -- those are just two examples, but along with these multilateral initiatives, we are worked on a bilateral basis with many countries around the world. and as was mentioned, the trip i just took provides an illustration of how these multilateral and bilateral relationships work. at the g6 plus 1 meeting which brings together dhs and our counterpart ministries from europe's top six countries, six largest countries, we made great progress on concludeing an

agreement with the europeans on information sharing about passenger travel known colloquially as pnr, passenger name records. these are records that we use to analyze travelers boarding flights to the united states from abroad and to make sure that passengers are not susceptible to doing harm to aviation or to the homeland. we also made on the same trip important progress on key bilateral agreements with countries in the middle middle east. in the qatar we signed an aviation agreement to strengthen our ability to come bass transnational crime and other threats while facilitating travel and international trade. we established common objectives on security and trade in two unique ways. first, we've agreed with qatar to have the department of homeland security, the united states, put customs and

immigrations officers in the dubai airport or the doha airport to advise officials on the admissibility of passengers into the united states prior to boarding and traveling to our country. if a passenger is determined to be admissible, our agents will provide that information to the qatar officials, and they in turn can prevent the passenger from traveling at all. we have similar agreements with nine other countries, but this is the first of two such agreements now in the middle east. second, we agreed to pilot the use of global entry which is cbp's trusted travelers program to expedite the industry into the united states for a limited number of vetted qatari citizens. again, there are similar arrangements with five other countries, notably canada and mexico, but this is the first such agreement in the middle east. with these two agreements, we will better secure our country and better facilitate lawful travel and trade with qatar.

in the uae we met with the crown prince of abu dhabi. this was the third time i've been to abu dhabi, actually, as secretary. as in doha, we agreed to place our customs and immigration officers at abu dhabi airport to advise officials about the admissibility of passengers. we also signed a letter of intent to commence the process of establishing preclearance in abu dhabi. preclearance allows passengers and their luggage heading to the united states to be fully screened by our customs and immigration officials before boarding the plane in their country of origin. allowing us effectively to push our borders outward while facilitating a more beneficial customer and traveler experience. now, the issues tackled in these sorts of meetings, obviously, represent only a fraction of the

work we do overseas. i haven't talked about the work we're doing on cybersecurity, on human trafficking, on emergency response. our extensive collaboration with a number of countries from if mexico to india. but i think the important conclusion is that there is a new paradigm in how our country engages with our foreign partners. an engagement driven by the mutual opportunity to enhance security and to promote economic benefits at the same time. every refinement on how we share information, every efficiency we gain in screening for high-risk travelers helps us get out of the way of legitimate travel and trade and facilitate the work that must go on around the world. because if perceived security hassles discourage people from coming to the united states to do business and to spend money,

we lose out. and in today's world we simply cannot afford to do that. other opportunities for these types of mutually-beneficial engagement agreements exist across the homeland security enterprise. cybersecurity in particular continues to emerge as a shared concern across nations while combating transnational crime, human trafficking and other law enforcement issues, obviously, requires international cooperations. we will continue to work across the globe, indeed, immediately upon my return i joined president obama and canadian prime minister harper to announce the beyond the borders action plan which dhs has had a key role in shaping and will have a primary role in implementing. canada is our largest trading partner, and this action plan will further strengthen coordination with the combination of security and the facilitation of trade and commerce across the border.

so this new paradigm, the engagement at the interior/home secretary level, the merger of security interests with travel and trade and commercial interests becomes, i believe, the new future of homeland security. and in the end, i think it will help make us even more secure. so i will stop talking there, terry, and let's have some conversation. thank you all very much. [applause] >> well, that gives us a lot to talk about. a new paradigm for engaging international partners on these issues, and i want to ask about that in kind of a general sense. some of the partnerships that you're developing are not with traditional, he is to haveically close allies. you're branching out, it sounds like. what are the benchmarks you look for in an international partnership that you know the governments are going to be able to do the job?

let me put it colloquially, how do you know who you can trust? >> well, first of all, we work closely -- there's a lot of work that goes on before we enter into an agreement. there's, and that work ongoing develops that sense of trust. as i mentioned, this was my third time in abu dhabi. it's the kind of relationship where you know each other by name, you call each other on the phone in between trips. when they're in washington, they visit and like weez, the reverse -- likewise, the reverse. so part of it is at the personal level, part of it, obviously, is at the diplomatic level. we work closely with the state department. and then we often, in these agreements, do a pilot first just to make sure that everybody has a common understanding, that we know what is expected of us, they know what is expected of them. and then we go into full implementation. so, for example, the new agreement with the uae we will

begin first with putting immigration and customs officials in the airport at abu dhabi, and then we'll move into full preclearance. and preclearance, you know, this is, this is a big deal. we don't have preclearance in many places around the world. to be able to take travelers and, in effect, enter them into the united states before they board a plane abroad is a huge step forward and really facilitating that international engagement. >> these issues can occasionally become political issues and even -- >> really? [laughter] >> -- get demagogued. let me ask that. you can imagine parts of our political spectrum who just don't like the sound of that, that we're going to preclear people out of parts of the world which we've seen as sources of violent extremism, international terrorism. how do you put those minds or those arguments to rest? >> well, first of all, the

standards and requirements for preclearance are quite stiff. and it's not as if we are not physically there. we are physically there. it's our system that is being deployed. but it's being deployed earlier in the process. it's being deployed overseas. we've had preclearance, we have it in some very unusual places in some respects. i think we have it in bermuda. we have it at shannon and dublin airports in ireland. but this was in terms of us looking across the globe and seeing where we really want to, um, not just facilitate travel, but know who's traveling, these countries in the gulf and in the middle east are key partners. and it's advantageous to them, it's advantageous to us. it allows us to find a smart middle ground or common ground, better said, where our interests coincide. and that in and of itself helps build a stronger strategic

partnership. >> how you know it succeeds? >> um, well, we will, i think we'll see, um, travelers move to the precleared routes. i think that'll be the easiest way to see because they'll recognize that having precleared abroad so that when you get off of that 13-hour flight and land at dulles or jfk you don't have to wait in lines, i think most travelers would view that as an advantage. so i think we'll measure it by how travel routes adjust. >> let me ask you a question that i know the secretary of the department of homeland security always gets, but we're sheer, so why -- we're here, so why not? what keeps you up at night as you look at the raft of endeavors and programs that you're undertaking to address threats and problems, what keeps you up at night? >> well, i think, you know, the things i know about don't keep me up because they're being

handled. it's the things you don't know about that can imagine where you're trying to really think your way through and be proactive. that can engage you in some nighttime thinking. so the known/unknown as has been said before is something i think anyone in a position like this one has to, has to be concerned with. >> privacy. >> uh-huh. >> which was a big issue in the agreement that you reached with the g6 plus 1. and more broadly than that for a lot of people in a lot of countries around the world, there's this sense of encroach ing eyes of government on us at every single stage. you get that all the time. so what do you say as you reach these agreements, push our borders and the united states way of doing things out into countries which have different traditions and values perhaps? is big sister watching?

>> i think big sis is my moniker in the drudge report -- [laughter] so i knew i actually made it when i had my own name in the drudge report. yeah, that's a standard. [laughter] the pnr agreement is a good example of this. the pnr agreement, actually, will be with the e.u., which means we've had to negotiate with the commission, we've now finished an agreement and initialed it. we anticipate it to be approved by the council next week on the 13th, and then we will have to go and have it ratified by the european parliament. we have been the lead negotiator for the u.s. on this agreement, and one of the key sticking points has been data privacy protection which is one of the fundamental rights in the charter of rights in the e.u.. you know, there, you know, one of the key things we've had to do is to educate our e.u. partners that the united states values privacy too, and we value

our personal information. we just have different legal systems by which to address them. and in the new pnr agreement i think we've reached accommodation with the e.u. privacy interests consistent with the way the united states handles privacy and data protection issues. at the same time, by being able to exchange pnr and have that agreement in place we will have one of the more effective and important tools available to us to know about the international travel of potential terrorists, transnational criminals and the like. i could mention new zealand si beautiful la sas si, david headley are just two of the individuals we have helped identify through the pnr data. >> for every one of those, the horror stories are out there that there's a david headley

who's not the david headley you want. >> right. >> how long does his personal information, his data remain in databanks that he might rightly feel violate his privacy? >> under the new agreement, the travel information remains six months, and then there's a tiered system by which it is anonymized but is available to be retrieved on an as-needed basis. so what we've done is kind of look at it from a what do you think from a law enforcement perspective, a security perspective and a privacy perspective. and the, um, e.u. negotiators felt that was a reasonable way to approach the problem. i think it's reasonable as well, obviously. >> and then that gets us to terrorism, violent extremism. the threat is of a different nature now. ten years ago, obviously, al-qaeda had a country to operate from. their capacities have been degraded, and you have almost a

kind of spread of the threat down to individual lone wolfs as you said. how significant a threat is that, the individual traveler, the individual lone wolf terrorist? and what kind of systems can defend against that? >> well, i think, you know, what we try to do is maximize the ability to protect global systems, to protect the global aviation system, the global maritime system, the cargo system. it's obviously something that one country cannot do by itself, that's why you have to have international engagement. you have to have standards. you have to do capacity build anything this regard. it's, obviously, something that will never be 100 percent guaranteed. but to the extent we can strengthen these international partnerships, really deal with the mutually-beneficial common ground, smart security, smart

commercial progress, it heightens our ability to protect the global systems. you know, we all know that one plane going down would be a disaster in terms of loss of life and property, but it also would have a huge economic impact both direct and indirect. thus, you know, that's why you can within nine months knit together 190 countries to come together and say these are the new standards that we are going to abide by and agree to an implementation plan and a set of criteria and capacity building initiatives that countries like the united states can help provide. >> so do you feel that the department of homeland security and the defenses that were established after 9/11 to respond to al-qaeda, a coherent, transnational terrorist organization, do they meet today's threats? >> yeah, because they've evolved. we have not been stagnant in the

post-9/11 world. we've built on, the department built on the work of my two predecessors, built on our greater knowledge and maturity in the whole area of security. i'll give you an example. tsa which was, basically, stood up from nothing after 9/11 had the premise, you know, and had to really that all travelers will be treated alike. and as we have grown and matured, as technology has gotten better we've been able to say, no, it's time to move to a more risk-based attempt. you have to do it slowly because of the nature of our adversary, but you can let kids keep their shoe on, you can start moving toward trusted traveler programs where people can go in different lines. i think we'll be looking at some other efforts to limit the amount of what's known in the trade as divestiture, things tough take off before -- you have to take off before you can clear the airport line.

you will all appreciate this as you travel over the holidays. but you won't see that over this holiday, but you will begin to see pilots and things of that nature as we move forward, and that's a big philosophical change, right? the underpinning has changed. the risk-based approach as opposed to treat everyone alike approach. as we mature, as we grow, we move in that direction. and our international partners do as well. >> well, there is a kind of cartoon version of tsa which you see out there, the don't touch my junk version of what americans have to go through. how big of a problem, how big of a hurdle is that when you're dealing with international partners that they see american air security as too intrusive, as that cartoon version? is that a problem? >> no, it really hasn't been. in fact, many european countries are installing and deploying the same kinds of security regimes

we do. why? because they've been threatened. we do it because not only have we been attacked by air, but we continue to see threats threatst regard. there's nothing that happens in the air environment that's not responsive to a threat. what we're trying to do now is say, all right, we need to take care of security, but we also need to be able to move, you know, 1.5, 2 million people a day through the nation's 400-plus airports. how do we do that most effectively? how do we fund research that will help us over the long haul, the long term speed up passenger travel? how do we make sure that the cargo that's going in that passenger hold is safe and secure? it's a combination of many hayiers. it's information -- layers. it's information gathering, it's analysis, it's intelligence sharing, it's different modes of looking at cargo and people as they even somewhere with the perimeter of an airport up to and including the last step, basically, being the actual gate. >> let's talk about cargo.

for years it's been seen as a potential vulnerability, the sheer scale of cargo that goes around the world and the potential for attacks based in it. let me ask it this way, why haven't there been cargo-based terrorist attacks given how little cargo is actually screened? >> well, there have been attempted. and, um, the next time you see a toner cartridge coming out of yemen, you might want to check twice. and, indeed, one of the risk factors we now look for is, is in the kind of cargo you would anticipate coming out of yemen? and i think there have been attempts. one of the things that we are working toward is literally just as in the passenger environment where we're going to move more toward risk based, cargo as well. emerging -- merging our

prescreening program for cargo, a trusted shipper program as it were with european definitions of the same. you know, as cargo moves around the globe working with countries around the globe in the same tag tag -- fashion. so that when you see cargo palettized from shippers that have been moving that kind of cargo for years, you know, you might put it over here always with a certain amount of random checking just to be sure and, you know, the single drop or the unusual piece of cargo from an unusual place, focusing your security resources there. all the while merging, finding that sweet spot between security and travel and commerce and, again, all countries of the world have an interest in that. so it gives the united states an opportunity to engage an entirely different level. >> and you mentioned the private sector. when your talking about securing the global supply chain,

shippers, this has not historically been a concern of that industry. is that a problem at all, getting private corporations onboard to go through these procedures, to harden up their defenses? >> oh, they're, they're very supportive of this. why? because as we do this, for example, as we work toward a truly global supply chain security system, we can harmonize things. we can reduce paperwork. we can reduce the amount of human intervention that has to occur as cargo moves from place of origin to ultimate place of intended delivery. um, so for them i think they see it as a way to reduce, ultimately, the travel costs, the transaction costs they incur moving, filling out the form in one country that asks for the same information but in a different way just a few yards away as they enter another country. so harmonizing those entry and

exit procedures and information, requiring more information to be not only delivered electronically, but well in advance of when the cargo actually is moving so that you, um, don't wait until something shows up at a border in order to make sure that it clears the customs side and the security side. >> so you haven't seen a resistance on the part of -- >> no. they want us to move faster. yeah. and i tell 'em, we're moving as fast as we can. this is not an easy task to take hundreds of nations all of whom have an interest and a sovereign interest in some of these issues and harmonize their requirements. >> a couple of the other issues that you raised, cybersecurity. this is, obviously, a huge issue for this country and others. how to the international -- how do the international partnerships work in an area where it is so hard, where there isn't national territory in cyberspace? >> you know, after the u.s./e.u.

summit in lisbon in november of 2010 one of the deliverables out of that was a cyber working group and, indeed, there's been a lot of work done u.s./e.u. on cybersecurity since then including participation in some joint scenario tabletop-type exercises involving cyber intrusions, disruptions, attacks. um, so there are some of those international engagements that have begun, but it would be premature for me to say they are where they need to be. we know this is an area of growing, you know, interference, attack. it's not just potential, um, potentially dangerous from a security standpoint, but from a commercial standpoint the effect of inte -- the theft of intellectual property that occurs online is a huge economic issue particularly for the united states where your economy is so based on innovation and

creativity, being the first in the world the develop something new. and if that can just be stolen online, that's a deficit for us. so i think that as we move forward the whole cybersecurity realm will be such a key, key international issue even though we are homeland security. >> and how do you differentiate between the threat in cyberspace from random hackers or even extremist groups and nation states when you think about russia and georgia, when you think about china? >> um, i think the issue of attribution is a very troublesome one. obviously, you know, the department of defense takes the view and rightfully so that we need a cyber command in that when they are nation-state actors, that's just another theater that needs to be dealt with. and we work with them. um, but much of what we see, of course, isn't attributed to

nation states per se. at least not at this point. and we have to deal with it as an individual or a group actor that may be located in an international environment or use the resources that are located internationally. for example, you may have a actor or actors located in one country. they are facilitating crimes in the another. the isp may be located somewhere totally different. so just the whole chain of things that are involved in cyber, in cyber crime, in cybersecurity and cyberspace very complicated, very fast. >> and one of those cyber crimes which you mentioned gets into another area, and that is the exploitation of children -- >> right. >> -- online and, beyond that, human sex trafficking of women and children. this is a problem that president bush tried the to put on the international agenda at his speech at the united nations

general assembly, and it just seems to get worse. .. >> when you look at all of these areas do you see that the essentially exporting united states standards, united states way of doing things, beyond the borders of the united states or

the borders of a new multilateral standard is emerging on these issues? >> i think u.s. standards can help inform what needs to happen, but other countries have other ways, sometimes better ways, cheaper ways to get to the same results. so when we think about this we think about it in many layers. with the bilateral and multilateral. we think about not just moving the borders of the united states out word but welcoming people and trade earlier in the global process. >> i want to ask about something in the news. the drill that went down in iran -- the drone that went down in iran. this is a technology which is going to spread by hook or by crook by the nature of technology. and represents a significant homeland security threat. do you look at that at all as

the next decade of drone technology and how it might spread? do you think about that? >> sure. it goes into what keeps you up at night question that you asked earlier which is to say that we no new technology devices are developed each day. they have been used to great effect by the united states abroad, but you have to anticipate the reverse could also be true. so we work not just among the community of nations but across the federal government as well with all of ours -- agencies with problems at the door. >> we are going to go to questions now. what i would like to ask is wait for the microphone and when you stand up to speak, introduce yourself and your affiliation. let's get some questions. we will start right here.

>> madam secretary, mark question is down in the weed. reasonable european friend of mine related a horrible experience he had coming in to jfk airport not so much the procedures themselves but the fact that only four out of 14 were functioning of all proportion to the number of travel. a year ago there was a similar experience covered by a column in the financial times related to dulles airport. all having to do -- anything be done to make this less disagreeable? >> that day he was traveling, here is the problem, simply put from a management standpoint.

these airports were built and designed well before current security needs and well before the big white body plane. and what we have, we have huge rush hours. all the planes arrive around the same time. they fled area and there's a dead period. from us staffing perspective that is difficult but we know it and we need to staff appropriately. we now get daily readouts of what the wait times are. we have worked to increase staffing at jfk, dulles, lax is another airport with wait times we think are unacceptable. so we are doing our best and we will continue to work on those. but again, to the point, when we can do clearance for example, any time we do pre clearance,

anytime we expand global entry which is the international -- a card you can get which allows you to circumvent the line here and go right on through. every time we expand those programs we take pressure off of those lines and that will be the advantage to us all. >> right here. >> good morning. david truly, senior fellow of homeland security policy institute. i wonder if you could share with us your latest sense of counterterrorism cooperation with india and the challenges going forward. >> that goes to india, out of the meeting between the prime minister agree will the president was a homeland security dialogue. so we have campaigned to work jointly on passenger travel,

counterterrorism, police training, all of those developments, cybersecurity being another one. i would venture to say there is a lot of work left to be done. part of it is the nature of india, big complicated country. different bureaucratic structure than we have. but i think as we saw with the attack on mumbai and other issues in india they have key terrorism issues that we can, i think, provide assistance from and when we talk about finding that difference between security protection and commerce, a great example where we can have a more robust relationship that we have right now. >> christopher graves with ogilvy. beyond the discipline and rigor of security it must demand more

creativity and innovation. two questions to that. you may speak more freely. what country or countries do you think are absolutely leading the way in security, creativity and innovation and why? what are they doing and how do you foster that? >> we are one of the leaders in creativity and innovation. one of the questions i get is why don't we do things the way israel does them? for example at the airport? we do some things that are common. we look at what they do. but realize that israel has basically one international airport and they process 50,000 passengers a day. we have hundreds that we process in the millions. scaleability issues are quite different. because we have a more large and complex system we have to be thinking differently all the time but in the sense of

innovation and creativity, we are constantly looking at ways to better enable us to identify who may be a traveler or what may be a piece of cargo that is at risk to us. we sponsor basic research and support it in terms of screening, sensing devices and the like. also in terms of how better to spot the haters that could be indicators of potential violent activity. one of the regrets i have in the budget process that we are in is the support for this kind of research that is consistently getting cut down because it doesn't produce an immediate effect. the research cycle is longer but i believe as we continue to knit together commercial and security

issues, that technology and that kind of creativity is going to be necessary moving forward. we have really been in a fight over on the hill with congress explaining why it is that a department called homeland security has to have a heavy research budget associated with it. >> let's go to the back. back there. >> madam secretary, your department deals -- fox news. obviously your department handles issues of fact shooters. wondering what your assessment is of the virginia tech responds yesterday and do you think anything can be done about these? >> first of all let's take a moment to extend our sympathies to the family and colleagues of the officer who was killed.

a horrible crime. i saw them when i was a prosecutor and as a governor. too soon to assess the response at virginia tech. but it really goes minute by minute. at least superficially it looks like it was very strong and very effective and i am not sure there will always be things you can do better. on the outside at least initially it looks very good and strong effective response. in terms of prevention, one of the things we constantly work on is how do you identify what are the behavior's, the techniques, things that would enable the local police officer to say is this person is getting ready to go nuts? we have for example the gun shop owner killing in texas who saw the odd behavior of a customer

and what he was buying and alerted law enforcement and probably prevented another massacre at fort hood. in this instance who knows what tipoff there would have been? but one of the things we focus on when i talk in my little preparatory remarks about shared responsibility and nationally, security is a shared responsibility with in the united states and a shared responsibility with local police officers but also a shared responsibility with the citizenry at large. that is the genesis of the see something say something machine. you are trying to at least increase the likelihood that you can pick up somebody before they start shooting. it is very difficult. >> great. >> thank you.

ted baldwin with c f r. i went to second the pre clearance which very much is a big break for which is a long time coming. a lot of resistance historically from customs and border protection to expansion and pre clearance. the concern over the rest of 40. what do you do when you have someone probing. they come into free clearance, custom's agent begins to ask questions and get nervous and i change my mind that don't want to come in to the united states and began to probe the potential weaknesses at entry. if you don't have the authority to arrest or detain that kind of person what is the level of risk or how did you get around it? it is a big concern about expansion and pre clearance despite the benefits you regulate. >> from a security standpoint if they don't come into the u.s. that may be a good thing. but part of it is exchanging

information with the authority of the country of origin. and what makes pre clearance work is good information sharing their goes along with it. >> back there. >> good to see you. i thought from what i read in terms of the u.s. canada, be on the borders action plan there were some major breakthroughs with respect to the mutual security of canada and the united states. there i say perimeter security will be enhanced. i had a specific question that is about reverse inspections at the land borders between canada and the united states. something that has been very difficult to effect to 8. i understand that is contemplated within the action plan that there will be rivers

inspection where usc beat the officers will be in canada in terms of people and goods heading for the u.s. border and the canadian border agency will be in the u.s.. my specific question is how does it look in terms of actually getting reverse inspection implemented? where do you think it might be implemented initially and what do you see as the time line? >> first of all i think the notion of perimeter security is a huge deal taking pressure off of the actual land border itself, working closely with canada which has been a great partner in this effort. in fact the meeting i will go to right after this will involve rail travel between the two countries and how to facilitate that. with respect to the particular issue you raised the vancouver

quarter, that will start shortly. we will see how that goes and look at expansion in the other major moves. i hesitate even to give a firm timeline because everybody will write it down and if you don't need it you are late but got to take it one step at a time but the vancouver area is frequently a traveled area so it is a good place to push. >> yes, sir. >> kevin shea, multiplier capital. the intelligence community, dod and the rest of government getting very well organized to confront the cyberthreat it is difficult for the private sector to achieve the same level of organization. could you speak about the private partnership programs that are in process? the i s ps and where those programs like to go?

>> there is a lot going on in the cyberworld with the i s ps and other private sector partners particularly in the a -- the 18 critical sectors of the economy that have security implications and economic implications, telecommunications and utilities and the like. i could give you the alphabet soup of partnerships. there are a lot of them. i would like to see some of these things over time consolidated because they are atomized in my judgment. what we all are striving for is again that sweet where the business interests of the private-sector merge with security interests of the department of homeland security. so we will continue to worked in that regard together because the united states like many other countries, the actual critical

infrastructure of the nation is not controlled by the government but is controlled by the private sector. >> is there a special challenge dealing with that industry because of the culture, very libertarian? wide open culture? >> cyber is first of all hiring personnel as a challenge. the and fiber -- d-backs if i can use that term, don't think about working for the department of homeland security of the first employment opportunity. i like to make it as attractive as possible. they don't have to wear a tie. they can telecommutes and all that stuff. i think right now there is a huge demand on the defense and civilian side for cyberpersonnel. there will exchange so rapidly. by the time we talk about a particular phenomenon it is already out of date.

from the management perspective my number one thing right now is hiring. >> right in the middle. >> thank you. i am from a japanese multinational. korea and panama, colombia, transports partnership for a bit of -- people and commodity and money. is named twenty-first century highest conduct. how is your department going to have a say in the standard in terms of the security commerce and also if you could, exchange with china in terms of security

and commerce? >> on tpp r anticipate primarily but also t.s. l.a. --tsa will have a vital role in standards moving forward as will similar global arrangements the united states has. with respect to china we have done some bilateral operations and bilateral initiatives and haven't reached an agreement on intellectual property protection with china. remains to be seen whether and how that will be implemented but at least on paper we have one. we have done some exchanges. we have done some things that are training exchange in nature. but i would venture to say there is a lot more we could do at the bilateral level with china. >> okay.

all the way back there. >> thanks for taking our questions. after the turner conference friend about a year ago, dhs announced a goal of 100% inbound cargo on inbound international passenger flights for the u.s.. that goal has been changed. has the goal been changed -- dean lind tend to inspect 100% of inbound cargo or screen at? will that comply with congressional requirements? >> what we are doing obviously is inspecting 100% of high risk cargo and screening 100% of all cargo on international passenger flights. we could give the exact time lines and things of that nature. the whole 100% label initially

required in statute is something we have been talking with congress about not just in terms of air cargo but cargo in general because it really is not practical and there are other ways to issue the same security objective. we have a security objective. the issue is there is 100% screening mandate actually further your way to media objective or by doing layers of security and others things, can you reach the objective more quickly? we think the latter.