>> and your conversations ranged far and wide, but covered matters such as the position your newspaper was printing in relation to the labour party either in opposition or in government material time, is that right? >> yes. ..

the mac -- i just want you to confirm that in case 93 about six items from the bottom of the entry for the 18th of july, tony blair made a key specie day and went down and not slow start. he spoke passionately with purpose, i'll just what was wanted to hear. so far so good? >> yes. >> it was a speech delivered with great energy and dynamism and confidence. and sure all that is correct. and we found out afterwards when he grabbed me by the shoulder right shrieked that was a great speech. he supplied the jfk. i'm sure that with that, isn't it? do not make light of the loving going on during the speech. i suspect they were making love

like to porcupines very, very carefully. is that sad? >> yes, those are all the lines. >> they didn't seem anything lee from where i was sitting. he seemed elated when i had a quick word outside. it's very important to come here and get the message of prayer that the new labour is not going to strangle businesses like news corp. we believe in a vibrant free press and a commercial enterprise. i'm sure words to that effect are probably set as well, weren't they? he's a very bright young man and made it great speech, didn't he come he raved. i'm going to back and then again i ask. too late to say, but i could see people needed a breath of fresh air. is that what mr. murdoch said? >> my recollection, yes. >> we know that mr. murdoch did

back mr. player before 1997, didn't he? >> yes, he did. >> thank you very much, mr. moore again. there may be further questions, but those i have to ask of you. >> okay, thank you. >> i'd like to ask mr. morgan about stephen not. i don't know whether you recall that. >> yes, i do. >> mr. moore again, you said in your book and you confirmed in your evidence to the inquiry earlier that the first you ever heard of the practice of phone hacking was on the 26th of january, 2001. is that correct? >> yes,. >> any still maintain that,

don't you? >> yes. >> you were the editor of the daily mirror in august 1998, where you? >> yes. >> in your member no doubt been a black man who is one of your editors come is that correct? >> yes, she was a reporter actually. >> she was actually special projects editor 1998, was that she? >> i don't know. she may have been. >> were you aware that she was contact by someone by a major news story about how mobile telephones could be hacked? >> no. >> the story came from someone called stephen north, and a driver at a fairly memorable story, isn't it? >> i don't remember. >> mr. northgate evidence here, evidence not challenge that ms. blackman when he telephoned

her was very excited about this story and one of the biggest headlines that decade. do not recall that? >> the death of the princess of a major event found that incredibly hard to blame. i studied this man's website since then and he seems me one short of impending. >> so you're aware of your evidence, mr. morgan? a story such as this you would have did to bring to you, wouldn't you? >> the idea is the biggest news story of the decade. that's complete nonsense. >> and having heard the evidence will know that he said after chasing this but are in for days and days, finally 12 days later

she came back and said the newspaper wasn't interested in the story at all. >> well, it happens every hour of every day in the daily newspaper. we offer thousands of stories like this. i have nothing to do then. >> or can you say, mr. moore again. but he restrained because mobile telephones could be hacked in precisely the way that he said they could. >> that's true. >> so he wasn't really parking, was the? >> that was just testimony. i would say parking, yeah. >> when mr. north complained that the mirror had spent 12 days checking out his story and then decided that despite the fact that this part this works, they weren't actually going to publish anything, he was very concerned, wasn't he? you were going to use it as a

nearer to the persons obtaining stories about one of people. do you remember he gave that evidence? >> i just think how nicely nothing about it would never get his story. it never got suppressed for the reasons he's trying to insinuate. >> if it's such a nonsense and nonstory, why was he sent a check for 100 pounds out of the blue in september of that year? >> lots of people would be paid for offering stories that don't be used. it happens all the time. nothing usual whatsoever. >> have you seen the description for which he was paid, mr. morgan? >> no come i've never seen a check. 100 pounds for the biggest story of the decade sounds pretty cheap to me. >> the stir is entitled phone

scandal. >> rate. >> the story never. but then he paid him 100 pounds without them even asking for it several weeks later. >> and your point? >> i asked the questions, mr. morgan. were you aware of the payment at the time? >> no. >> were you aware of the story at the time? >> no. >> even though it was bred to one of your editors? >> as i said, thousands of stories about to be attached my journalists on a weekly basis because i think we offer over two dozen stories a day and published about 120. >> stories about a mobile phone scandal that we know has now caused such an outrage that it has led to the inquiry.

>> you are massively self inflating the importance of this particular character in a somber psychotically excessive campaign to make people think people. have no idea what he seen in his website and testimony. absolutely nothing to do with him. they got published in my local newspaper at a later date, but i don't know for a fact that what seems to have happened. >> the point is, mr. morgan, that no one, not the tabloids want to publish which the story because they didn't want to reveal the practice they were using for the purposes of obtaining stories about precisely the celebrities and well-known people they wanted to sell their newspapers face. that's correct, isn't it? >> i think it's total nonsense. >> last question, mr. morgan.

when you see found on the 26th of january, two dozen one about the process of phone hacking, it was mr. nonstory that gave rise to that knowledge, wasn't it? that's how you knew about phone hacking. >> absolute nonsense. >> no further questions. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. morgan. would you please think those who facilitated the possibility of your evidence on a video link and all the people who have done the work at your end. >> am i allowed to say one final thing? >> it depends about what you want to speak. >> this becomes some less like a lock start having an album coming out. i do feel still very proud of a lot of the very good step that those the news of the world did and it does slightly concerned me. a lot of it is very, very

useful, but i do think there has to be a better balance here. a lot of the very good things that the newspapers were doing during those periods and continues to do or not being at all. >> if you follow the choir eight carefully, mr. morgan, you will find i said several times not nearly that much about the tabloids in the newspaper industry guys is splendid and utterly to be applauded. but i have also emphasized the need for that balance. i hope you see that part of the inquiry's final. i'm very conscious of that said many times that the enormously important work that all newspapers do, which is why i've always made it very clear that the critical importance of freedom of expression and

freedom of the press is to be preserved. >> yeah, i appreciate that. i think the industry guys, too. >> thank you very much. thank you two of those have made this possible. >> it was obviously sensible that we conclude that evidence. tomorrow morning, 10:00. thank you.

>> next to robert new hampshire where jon huntsman took questions on the health care law, government regulations and energy independence. this is just over an hour. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> i have also prepared notes, but i realize time is short, so we're going to make this fairly short. from my point of view, the person we put in the white house is going to have to be a statesmen, a leader and the president. not a conservative, not a liberal, not a republican and not democrat. and for that reason, i am honored to have the opportunity to introduce someone who offers everything we need and by all rights should be our next president. jon, i welcome you to rochester. [applause] >> thank you, thank you.

bob coming thank you for that introduction. i am honored to be here today. it's a great honor and privilege. welcome to our campaigns 400 public event. back then it? just kidding. i think this is 126. julie spent a whole lot of them and it's a pleasure to be here. jeffrey, it's a pleasure to be with you. thank you so much. what to think a few moments and share some thoughts with you. before that, as i to turn you to the greatest human being i've ever met because i think it's important when you get to know the candidate to get to know who the candidate out with because that will allow you to better understand me. so today i am deeply honored and privileged to be here with my wife of 28 years. i am also honored and privileged to be here with a couple of new years.

and elizabeth is right here. two of our seven with three girls on the campaign trail. two boys in the united states navy and honored to do to grow such home that don't better. they're doing what they are to be doing. so by way of ringing mary kay appear, let me just tell you that we were thrilled this morning to hear that we have received two of the five newspaper endorsements so far in this state, which is terrific. [applause] only five given so far. we received two of them considering that come from the margin of error when i started this effort in new hampshire. and now we're sitting in third place. just overtook ron paul for third place in new hampshire. i can feel the energy in this stadium.

you know, when physics began to take over, there's no way that it's going to turn back and i feel so they can physics once it begins you can't stop it. and i feel it moving to the end of december on into early january and peaking right around january. why is that important? because it's an important critical event and the entire country happening at january 10. before i collect mary kay, you will have a chance to change history. if you start to argue that the election of 2012 will be the most important in our lifetime because they are in, we will determine who we are it will be become for the next generation of americans. that's you. you do the diligence. you get to hear from the

candidates on a close and personal basis. you render a judgment and when you do that on the first primary that this great country has, the rest of the country pays attention. how do i know that? i'm from outside the state. in this country registers a bout, people pay attention because we know that you probably have seen these candidates and heard from them a lot more than anyone else will. so do you have a chance to make history? do you as individuals have this awesome responsibility on january 10 to begin what will be this march towards change next year in november? of course you do. and to that end it is an honor and a privilege to be a candidate for the presidency of the united states of america. but it is an honor and privilege as well to participate in the most extraordinary new hampshire primary process. and do i understand the part

about having to shake hands with everybody in this state for two times before you can devote? of course i do. i think are halfway there with most citizens already given her time on the ground and we are willing to put in that work in that effort in order to make it possible. ladies and gentlemen, i'd like to turn this microphone over to the greatest team in the nfl for no, the next first lady of the united states of america. my wife, mary kate. [applause] >> i'm honored to be here with all of you. thank you for taking her son made to be guys. just to show you a few things about the man i think it's been the most undervalued stock in this race so far. it's going to be new hampshire that would be the most valued candidate in this race. he is a man of honor, of integrity, of great character. he is disciplined. he is focused and he has just

about every trade one would look for when looking for a candidate. i remember two days ago we ran a plane going from one place to do next. i can't remember where we were going at this point, though we were flying somewhere and i opened up the economist magazine and found this article titled -- let's see, wanted: a fantasy candidate. where is the alternative? i started reading about who the candidate could be. it's that america is looking for a candidate with the streets. number one, somebody that has extensive, executive experience like winning the state effectively. so i thought checkup rocks off. then the next thing was somebody who understands business and can take this country back to what needs to be and to talk about

progress in getting the deficit down and make it not a priority. i thought chet vox number two. the next thing most people are looking for a candidate that has extensive foreign policy and would make a commitment to that. check box number three. number four was somebody that has the ability to unite this country. there we go. checked all those boxes. i thought this is really interesting. every single trade. looking for alternatives. i thought, this is what is happening on my own opinion that we got into this race and jon jumped into this race and immediately was discounted because we did something which i'm actually proud of what he did, serving his country. he did cross party lines because he was asked. and i think that is something that has a wife and mother of two sons serving in united states maybe i'm very proud that

he chose to serve. i think what kind of example with adventure of children who are out serving as he not set out to serve in a time that our country needed someone with a background in china. i'm pretty did that, but i thought it pinkies overlooked when he first got in. so i feel that this had been in this country is this comment many candidates candidates going in. jon says he gets with lavish look at the candidate to go up and down. people now are coming back and saying, you know what, we're going to be honest. we forgot to give you that first look. we appreciate you all been hearing giving him his first look. he's been the most undervalued stock. he's going to be the most valued stock. he's the most valued stock in my book. i'm excited for you all to get to know him and to understand why i love the man i do as i do and realize that this is somebody who is not only a mile long, he is a mile deep in all of the issues. so i'm excited for you to get to

know him. [applause] >> so i like to tell people, if you can't find anything to like about me and i hope that's not the case, you're going to find something to like about her. and you can't find anything to like about her, you're crazy. but if that's the case, we've got seven kids and we can divide and conquer geographically in the state pretty well. i like our chances in new hampshire. this is a fabulous day. i want you to walk away with two things. but i am going to do another let this president at the united states of america. the two things i believe this country needs most in order to get us back on our feet and together as americans first and foremost. they are both deficits and they both need to be addressed. one is the economic deficit. it's called $15 trillion.

it is a cancer metastasizing in this nation and if we don't deal with it aggressively and realistically, it will consume the next generation. and i say that's not fair and that is not right. i don't want to see it as just the data problem because when you have 70% debt to gdp, look around the bend in europe. what is italy? 120% debt to gdp? greece, 170% debt to gdp. japan, well over 100% debt to gdp coming your economy doesn't grow any more. and i say we need to quit looking at this debt as just a debt problem. it's a national security problem, ladies and gentlemen. if we don't do with it aggressively, it will hurt our economy and the ability to compete in what today is a highly competitive marketplace. so not only am i going to hit

hard from a devastating standpoint, i agree with the right plan, what congressman ryan has put out. i'm the only candidate in the states who agrees with the ryan plan and buddy status in terms of the $6.2 trillion of cuts any to be made of the next 10 years. is it tough? is that they? of course it is. we have a choice of people? we don't have a choice given in terms of where we are in the download. let's get realistic about that. the other party learned as governor -- i want to fire the engines of growth in this country because our people know that we are ready to grow. for the most creative, entrepreneurial creative people liner. we have no confidence. we want to break out of the box. we want to cry when they want to get out of the hole, but we are stuck. and i say we are stuck because we don't have a plan. we are stuck as we have

structural challenges call tonight and 55 taxco trying to travel on the superhighway of the 21st century and we wonder why we can't compete. we have structural problems caused too much in the way of regulatory red tape. we have structural problems like a country that wants to become energy independent and we in the hayward like addiction to 60% imported oil, but were not bold enough to take the steps necessary to get us there. i want to get it done and i want all of you and mr. and to take a copy of my economic plan is to walk out. if you haven't seen it already, endorsed by "the wall street journal," the most respected editorial page in economics in this country came out and said the only candidate that makes any sense on tax reform is huntsman. we like his tax plan. what he asked where is the phasing out of loopholes and reductions in total. i delivered to citizens in utah what is effectively a flat tax.

everyone said it couldn't be done. tough, challenging, politically, maybe treacheries. i did the same thing. called for the season out of loopholes and deductions. i want to broaden the base and i went to simplify. so i'm speaking to you while not as an academic theorists. i'm speaking as a product visionary. i want to do for this country what i did for my state and firing at the engines of growth than in boosting confidence in our overall direction. it can be done and we can launch as a people a manufacturing renaissance in this country. you know, i get around this great state and i see hollowed out old red brick manufacturing buildings for the last industrial revolution. and i say, these buildings were once fired by energy and put it tvd and the competitive spirit that we own body as americans.

i want to get back to those days. some people say that's impossible. that's totally doable within our grasp. we have the largest market part place in the world. with the most productive worker on earth. for just a little tired. we just fallen behind in terms of our environment. i want to launch a manufacturing renaissance in this country. i know in order to do that we have to create a more competitive environment in which to operate. that's totally doable. so while a china has been riding high for 30 years they're beginning to come down. inflation has gone up. cost of manufacturing has gone up. 10%, 15% per year. clinical uncertainty around the corner and the investment dollars that is conveniently lands in china is going to be looking to go somewhere else. i say we in this country would

be crazy if we didn't recognize that and didn't do something about it. because that investment dollar want to go to europe or a dad. they're not competitive anymore. they're going to want to come here. if we're smart enough to fix our taxes and approved of regulatory dynamic and take steps to greater energy independence and work on things like workforce training, vocational skill development, we can beat the manufacturing power we all know is possible. i want to get it done. i want to lead the charge in making that happen in providing, creating jobs and expanding the wherewithal to allow us to broaden our economic base and pay down the bills. that is the economic deficit and that's how we do with it. the second data set, ladies and gentlemen is not an economic deficit. it is a deficit of another kind. it is called a trust deficit because the people of this nation no longer trust their institutions of power.

we are a nation founded on institutions developed based on trust. i look today. we have lost trust in our institutions of power. i look at congress. 80% approval? i'd like to know what those people are hanging out. a nice day, it's no wonder congress needs term limits and nobody wants to talk about it. i'm going to lead the charge around this country talking about term limits for congress. congress needs to close the revolving door that allows members to file out into the lobby profession where they can trade in on insider relationships. driving cynicism among the people that we wonder whether it's 8%. we have to do something about docking the pay of members of congress until they can balance the budget for heavens sake. [applause] ..

anybody? who has a lobbyist on capitol hill doing your

bidding for you? anybody? who is paying for it all? we're all paying for it and i say, in my tax code, if you want to get serious about cleaning up washington and addressing lobbying and the special interest carveouts i think are ruining this country, change the tax code. phase out all the loopholes and deductions and the corporate welfare and subsidies on the business side. that's what i'm going to do because when you get rid of all that there is not much to lobby for anymore and i think that is a good outcome. when you get rid of all that it levels the playing field for businesses trying to get up and on their feet. that is what i want to have happen. i want to infuse trust back into our tax code. i look at our wars. no trust toward our wars. 10 years we've been fighting the war on terror. 10 years. we've given it our all as people. some families have given the ultimate sacrifice.

to them we offer a deep sense of gratitude and thanks and respect. and i say, but we've got a lot to show for what we've done in afghanistan as people. i want to stand up and explain to the american people that we've routed the taliban from power. we've upended and dismantled al qaeda. they're now in subsidiaries and sanctuaries in waziristan and beyond. we've had free elections. we have killed osama bin laden. you know what? it's same for these people to come home. [applause] thank you. 100,000 troops in afghanistan. nation-building at a time when this nation so desperately needs to be built. if we don't have a strong core which we don't have today, our economy isn't working. you can't project your values. so this world is worse off because we're weak. when this nation is strong, i have lived overseas four

times. i've seen this nation at its best. it projects the values of liberty and democracy and human rights and free markets. we're not doing that today. i want to fix this core. i want to get this nation back on its feet because until we do so we don't have much of a foreign policy. if we're weak at home, we are weak abroad. then i'm going to pull out the map and i'm going to say, 700 american installations in 60 countries around the world? we have a little bit of the overhang from the cold war mentality. george cannon, circa, 1946. we need to be in the second decade of the 21st century in terms of our foreign policy and national security structure. i look at germany. 50,000 troops? in 20 different installations?. folks the russians aren't coming anymore. let's get real about where we need to be in terms of our position throughout the world. i want a foreign policy for the american people that is

led by economics, first and foremost. got to recognize the ongoing counter terror threat that we have. that will be with us as far as the eye can see into the 21st century and we have to take it seriously but i want a foreign policy led by economics. it used to break my heart running the embassy in beijing, the second largest embassy in the world. i look at neighboring afghanistan. we have 100,000 troops securing the premises. the chinese would move in and take the mining concession. there is something wrong with this picture. something wrong with this picture. i want a foreign policy-driven and led by economics that plays back into strengthening our core, creating jobs. i look at wall street. no trust. no trust toward wall street. and why should there be? banks, that are too big to fail. banks that have an implied guarantee on the part of the taxpayers. so if they screw up, they

get a bailout. because they're too big. if they go down, we all go down. and all i'm here to tell you ladies and gentlemen, we're not going to do bailouts anymore. we've been there and we've done that we're not doing it again. [applause] thank you. but in order to ensure that, we're going to have to have a president who can right size the banks. here is what i mean. we have got six institutions combined have assets that are equal to 2/3 of our nation's gdp. $9.4 trillion. you're talking about two to $3 trillion institutions. if they get sick, they catch the flu that is now spreading in europe, they get infected, they can't fail because they take us all down with them. so i say, in my book, capitalism without failure isn't capitallism. that's what we've set up on wall street.

banks as, you know, institutions that we're just going to bail out over and over again because they're too big to fail and i say that puts taxpayers in a very precarious position. i want to right size those banks. i want to right size those banks, take them back to the level they were say in the mid-1990's. so if they screw up, if they make bad decisions they can fail. if you're too big to fail, then we're going to address it, we're going to deal with it because in a free market economy that does not serve our interests well longer term. so ladies and gentlemen, when, you leave here today i just want you to remember that huntsman guy, he is going to deal with the economic deficit and he is going to draw from his experiences as governor where he took his state to the number one position in job creation. where he took his state to become the best place in america in which to do business. and i want you to remember that huntsman guy as someone who is going to deal with

the trust deficit as aggressively as he does the economic deficit because it is equally corrosive for our people in america if we don't. because in the end we've got to come together as americans. we can't park in our little cul-de-sacs and alleyways and expect to find solutions to our problem. we've got to come together as americans and draw from the best traditions of our past. and i want to help get us there. and all i want you to do is take a look where i've been and what i've done. i want you to know that i'm not going to pander. i'm not going to contort myself into a pretzel. i'm not going to sign those silly pledges like everybody on the debate stage has done. i'm just not going to do that. i will do what i think is right for the people i represent. that is always been what i've done. i have a record that speaks to being a consistent conservative. mary kay mentioned that there may have been people that passed by me.

that guy went over a partisan line to serve in china as u.s. pam ambassador. of course i did. i was raised with the idea that you put your country first and that is a belief, ladies and gentlemen, that i will take to my grave, i'm sorry. that is just who i am. you're asked to serve your country, you serve. i also served president reagan, president bush and president bush, i will always believe in putting this country first. so as you weigh my background, as you look where i've been and what i've done and who we are as a family i hope we can win you over. so my final request is this. i just want your vote. that is all i want. i want your vote. that isn't asking for too much. i know i've got to earn it. i know i have to win it over. part of that is taking a look at where i've been and what i've done. you might not like 100% of it. that is okay. that doesn't mean we can't be friends. that doesn't mean we can't win you over because in the end we'll recognize what exists in this great country of ours. we will recognize we have

everything we need to succeed in this country. we don't have the confidence right now to break out and get it done. we have everything any nation would want to succeed. i saw that living in china 10,000 miles away. you reflect on this country, the greatest nation that ever was. the most blue sky optimistic problem-solving people in the world. that's us. that is who we are. and right now we're a little down. we're in a funk. we're a little dispirited and dejected which is not natural that is not who we are as people. we don't belong in a hole. we've got to get out. we've got to find solutions. we've got to march forward together as americans. but you also look from china 10,000 miles away on what we have in this nation. we've got it all. we're the envy of the world still in this regard. we have stability. we have rule of law. we have the longest surviving constitution in the world. we have private property rights. we have the greatest universities and colleges

anywhere on earth and people still fox here to attend them just to prove the point. we have the most entrepreneural, creative and innovative population of people anywhere in the world. we have a pretty brave and courageous armed forces. and i will be darned if we let those who have been on the front lines in the theater of combat come back to the unemployment lines. that is just not going to happen. they're going to come back to our respect, our admiration, and our gratitude. and they're going to come back, ladies and gentlemen, to jobs. and opportunity because they deserve it. and they, like the greatest -- thank you. [applause] thank you. and they like the greatest generation, we have some in the audience who may be from the greatest generation and i had the great opportunity of shaking hands with members of the greatest generation. just like they built this country in their generation. we have another greatest

generation coming up, i'm here to tell you and they're going to participate in the building of this great, the rebuilding of this great nation. they will be part of that as well. do we have everything we need to succeed in this nation? of course we do. we don't have leadership. we don't have confidence. and we don't have a plan. is 2012 critically important it our future? absolutely it is critically important and therefore all of you are too. as participants in the first primary in this great country of ours. not to put too much pressure on you but the world will be watching ladies and gentlemen. thank you so very much for being here today. i appreciate it. thank you. thank you. [applause] now mindful that there is a patriots game, and the most dangerous place for a candidate to be standing is between you and a patriots game, i know we want to get

through some questions comments, whatever you have, then we'll let you go so we don't disrupt the most important event of the day, right? so please, we'll turn time over to you. not that the patriots would give it away or anything. yes, sir? >> [inaudible]. >> i come from an open, an on state, right-to-work state and i think that right to work states have a distinct advantage in the marketplace and i think time will prove that capital is a coward and capital always flees risk in the marketplace and always finds a safe haven where it parks itself. i think given, what we've seen play out with the boeing situation in south carolina for example, that's a perfect example of the manipulation of the marketplace and capital will flee from that kind of activity. i don't think it bodes well for right to work rates or nonright-to-work state, if i were ever in a nonright-to-work state as a

governor and i had companies looking to expanding in other states and got that kind of treatment, i would worry about the rest of the companies headquartered in my state. what's the alternative? they go overseas. they go to china. and i say that is a loser for everybody in the united states. so let this be debated. let it play out but as for me i've seen in my own state the power the marketplace at work and how right to work status contributes to that. thank you. yes, sir? >> a lot of candidates -- >> sorry about that. >> listen to a lot of candidates with all of their promises and what they're going to do and what they have done and most of the time nothing happens. and of course, right now, for a long time we've been looking at all this partisan bickering in washington. how on earth are you going to get past that to implement some of these wonderful ideas that you

have? >> i'm going to lead. you know i heard the same thing when i was elected governor back in 2004, how are you going to make it happen everybody talks about this. i let out, i came out with a very simplistic template for economic revitalization. started with tax reform, flat tax, went all the way through to health care reform. took us a couple of years. we got it all done. and i went back to the people when i was reelected. i said if you like your state, i fulfilled my promises. took us a while. might have been ugly to watch play out but we did what we said we were going to do. if you like where your state is, i want your vote. if not you can vote for the other guy. we got almost 80% of the vote for re-election. i learned an important lesson through all of that you tell the people what you think you can get done and then you work your darnedest to execute and get it done. no politics, no theatrics, no-nonsense in the meantime. get the work of the people

done. and i'm telling you when you're elected, as i believe i will be next year, you have got the will of the people for a certain period of time. you have the goodwill of congress as a governor does with the legislature for a certain period of time. remember, congress wants to be led. they don't like to be left doing nothing. we find that today. there's a vacuum on capitol hill. what happens in that vacuum? mischief-making. everybody find their political corner, their extreme partisan and they finger point and they engage in the blame game, and all the while the work of the people doesn't get done. congress wants to be led. so in that first year-and-a-half, after i'm elected i will take three things to capitol hill and i will say, to the leadership, as ronald reagan, ronald reagan did a great thing in 1980. he befriended tip o'neill and he befriended the senate majority leader and relationships mean a lot on

capitol hill. i would do that. and then i would take three things to capitol hill my first day and say, i've got a pretty simple agenda i want it pursue. i know it will take us a couple years to do it. it is work of the people. they want it done. they spoke out at the last election. let's not rest until we get it done. that will be the tax package i brought forward, veted in bipartisan fashion. i know it can get through congress. it is not a partisan thing that gets wild applause at some political event. second, regulatory reform. simple steps like repealing obamacare and repealing dodd-frank. everybody knows we have to clean up the marketplace. that will be part of it. third, in the spirit of moving toward energy independence, i want to dismantle, disrupt, that one product monopoly. it is great if you want to use oil or the oil derivatives. it is terrible if you want to use any alternative product and i say we're a

nation that will draw more and more from alternative fuels like natural gas. how do i know that? i ran my car on natural fast when i was governor and the number one problem was distribution. finding filling stations. how do you get fuel in your car? we have a problem in this country. we have a whole distribution system that favors one product and consequencely we have this heroin like addiction to imported oil. $300 billion transfering from this nation to other places every year. i say that is coming to an end. we're going to take control of our energy future. why? because we can. we have all of the raw materials necessary in this nation to make it happen. we have some structural problems. we have to do to that one product distribution system what we did to broadcast communication in the early 1970s. it was taken before the federal trade commission and senate judiciary committee it was blown open. look what we have today. those are the three things i will take to capitol hill. i will say we have

year-and-a-half, two years to get it done. let's get busy. exert a bit of leadership on top of that. i think this country is hungry to see things happen. i'm guessing that congress, for all the appearances of their being divided and polarized there is no leadership on capitol hill because of course the fallback position is, mischief-making. that is not going to happen when i'm elected president. we're going to focus on the three or four key objectives for american people in order to revive this economy and we're going to get it done. thank you. yes, sir? >> [inaudible]. >> there we go, right behind you. >> i have to now tell my wife i'm not as loud as she thinks i am. [laughter] i've always believed that one really great way of

saving money in this country is was by soing pork spending. one of the reasons why i liked senator mccain so much. and i really am against pork. i like to know where you stand on that issue? >> no pork. no pork. [applause] but, on top of that, you know, what is the best safeguard just moving forward ensuring we clean house? a tax code that phases out the loopholes and the deductions and all the carveouts and special interest groups are getting. that is what i want to do, so i can say no pork which is a great sound bite but you know what? structurally i want to change the system so that we have a level playing field for everybody. and you know, it will end up in three different rates. a flatter system. it will broaden the base. allow us to simplify. i think that is the most powerful contribution we can make getting back on our

feet in terms of economic revival. i think it is the most important contribution to make cleaning up practices of washington, no question about it. that is what i want to do. thank you. yes, sir, right behind you. >> yes. i'd like to have you talk a little bit about family and reverse sus wade. >> and what is that last part? >> roe v. wade. >> reverse sus wade. i am pro-life. i always have been and so for those who might not agree with my position, that's where i am. i have two little adopted girls at home who remind me every day. one is from china. one is from india. and i'm reminded, i can't say every day because i don't get to see them every day anymore. that is a heart-breaker for me but when i do see them i'm reminded about their mothers who i will never get to meet, and for whatever reason in their cultures where it would have been a

whole lot easier to not choose life, they chose life and we now have the great blessing as a family to raise these two girls and i see how powerful their life is. i see the contributions they will make as they go forward in making the world a better place and bringing joy and happiness into people's lives. i say this is a pretty powerful thing. and that is just another example to me of the power of life. so that's been pretty central to my, my core philosophy. and that's where i come down on the whole issue of roe v. wade. thank you. yes, sir? back here. >> governor huntsman, i've been so impressed with your speaking in the national televised debates. i work with general tom mcinerney, fox news military analyst and iran is making threats if they are attacked they will retaliate against

america. for example, the top newspaper in iran supervised by the supreme leader came out with an article saying if i iran is attacked quote, there are elements in america who will detonate nuclear bombs in american cities. i wonder if you cans address the threat from iran? >> sound like a lot of, a lot of threatening hyperbole to me. not completely unexpected in a war of words. i do believe that the most transcend ant foreign policy challenge for us and our country is iran and i say that because they have got two things playing out. you have centrifuges spinning in iran making enriched product which inevitably i think will become highly-enriched product out of which you have enough fissile materiel out of which to make a weapon. you combine that with the rhetoric on display towards israel. you combine that with the connection tehran has with

today mass us in -- damascus and syria and hamas and hezbollah and you have a very lethal combination of elements playing out here. as for me, i say the leadership in iran has already decided to go nuclear. i think they have looked at the world. they looked at north korea. they're a nuclear power. maybe a handful of crude devices, they're out of reach for most people they look at libya which had a program they gave up for international friendships and alliances look what happened there. i think in tehran they're saying we want the leverage and stature that being a nuclear power will bring. so then we have to ask ourselves a simple question. can you live with a nuclear iran? if the answer is yes, then you're going to have to live with i think the dramatic proliferation implications including saudi arabia going nuclear, turkey likely going

nuclear. egypt, although we don't know what the leadership structure is going to look like anytime soon but chances are with the strong backbone of egyptian military they go nuclear. i say at that point you have lost control of proliferation in the middle east. that i think is an unsustainable position for the region to be in. so i can't live with a nuclear iran as i play it out on the chest board. if you can't live with a nuclear iran then you've got to conclude all options are on the table. all elements of national power are then on the to be used, however, you know, whatever phased way incrementally in order to keep iran from developing a nuclear weapon. that would be my position and i say, i think we're going to have to prepare for that conversation with israel, whether a year from now or three years from now think it will likely happen. there is enough information out there that leads us to

believe they have got enough fissile materiel. are you with us or not? and then we're going to have to remind the world what it means to be a friend and ally of the united states. that you stand with your friends. you stand with your allies. there are certain implied security commitments. there are certain implied economic commitments, there's certain values that bring nations together and at that point we need to stand on our commitments and i they make sure that the mullahs in tehran understand without ambiguity that all options are on the table for the united states. thank you. yes, sir? >> i see in your documents here that you believe in reducing the tax rates for corporations and also eliminating the taxes for the dividends and capital gains and it seems to me

that leave as lot of high-income people who work in the, in the securities area of not having any personal taxes, and i'm wondering why you chose to delete the dual taxation on that side as opposed to the corporate side where you wanted to lower that anyway? >> i'm guessing that on the corporate side not everybody is paying at the 35% rate. i want to recognize that reality. a lot of corporations can afford the lawyers and the lobbyists to do their bidding and figure out ways around it so i want it recognize the reality of the world in which we live, phase out corporate welfare. phase out subsidies which this nation has at last count, about 90 billion bucks worth and lower it from 35% to 25% in the name of growth. i have also said that on capital gains and dividends i want to take it to zero. i know we've got a lot of investors in this nation at all ends of the income spectrum. i think a lot more than

people might realize and i say i'm going to err in this case knowing full well you have a legislative battle ahead. these things always bring out a legislative battle but my going in position would be on that and erring on the side of growth because i think we need to fire up a level of confidence in terms of people's ability to begin to deploy more capital into the marketplace in ways that will allow this nation to take off from a growth perspective n my own calculation analysis i was erring on the side of growth in making that decision. thank you. yes, sir? >> governor, thank you for coming today. >> thank you. >> two issues that are probably high on my concern list. one is, i'm a small businessman. over the years i've always paid health insurance for my employees. it's getting to the point where i question how much longer i can afford to do that. the insurance rates that we

see keep on climbing and climbing. i was, and frankly i don't entirely agree with your position. i was disappointed that obamacare didn't offer either a single-payer or an option, a public option because i see the subsidies, tax subsidies we'll continue to have to pay for programs and community health centers and things like that we're subsidizing. we're subsidizing uninsured people through our insurance rates at hospitals who don't have insurance. so we have all these subsidies that are going to health care and yet the people that are paying the insurance are absorbing a significant portion of that cost. and my question to you, on that issue is, obamacare, or, eliminating obamacare leaves us with the same system we have today. how will it be any or more affordable in the future? that is the first question. the second quickly is, in terms of the open trade

policies, between countries, how do you feel about fair trade? and i don't hear any of our candidates talking about that in terms of fair trade where we allow our corporations to send jobs overseas to create things by avoiding regulations here that made clean air, clean water, some good regulations, good labor regulations where we don't have child care where we don't have workers' comp and we have protections for people? when you send it overseas and you don't have those policies and they can ship the products back, of course all the jobs are overseas. what are you willing to do to make it fair trade rather than just open trade? . . time when it goes to

20 to 25 of our gdp, expands our basic rates jobs. we're a great manufacturing power in this country. i want to get back to that reality, recognizing as mentioned earlier the changes that are taking place in the macroeconomic environment with china coming off of its high and giving us the opportunity to get bigger in terms of our manufacturing capability here. so i want to reverse those trends. i want to promote insourcing here. i want to promote more in the way of exports to the rising consumer marketplace. i think we're just beginning to fully understand. i think that's a very powerful

thing for our country. recognize the magnitude of what this might mean in terms of a single engine of growth that we might not be counting on right now. in the area of health care, so what are you going to do after 2014? after obamacare takes effect? i ask you as a small businessman. [inaudible] >> yeah, but the problem is affordibility with insurance policies. as we embarked on health care reform in our state when i was a governor, i thought we made some pretty important contributions to health care reform. we stumbled upon problem number 1 which is cost. it's a $3 trillion industry and to the gdp of france and any expert will tell you half a trillion bucks is needless, superfluous spending. so the question is, how do you take it out? what are the drivers of that

cost that we don't need and how do you take it out of the system? i'm guessing that frivolous litigation is part of it. tort reform would be a second step. the fee for service approach, you know, where you're directed to any -- you go to see your doctor and any procedure you might see if they're available. not fully understanding what the costs are. that leads me to believe that we need to start empowering our patients a little bit more when they walk into a doc's office understanding what procedures are available for them? what the costs are? and what insurance actually covers at the end of the day? we don't -- nobody understands costs. doctors don't know what the costs are. patients don't know what the costs are? we're in this highly ambiguous environment and we need to tighten it up and finally, closing the gap on the uninsured. we're never going to get there until -- you can mandate on closing the gap and then you can have where they have in massachusetts where costs go up 200 bucks a person, quality goes

down, emergency room visits go up. or you can do what we tried to do in our state and that's expand the marketplace for affordable insurance options. we had to find an affordable insurance option where the largest subgroup of our uninsured the young immortal population. 18 to 35 years old massachusetts of they're never going to die why do they need health insurance? there's nothing to afford in the marketplace. we worked hard in getting something that was accessible and affordable. i know other states are working on the same thing. this is a good breakthrough because it is proving the point that in the end, we can get insurance companies to do what they're supposed to do, take a risk. and i believe that the insurance companies haven't done enough of what they're supposed to do which is to take a risk and look at their risk pools and provide more for the american people in terms of affordable accessible policies. we just don't have those today. but if you wanted to buy that affordable policy out west, you can't do it today because it's a

cross-state transaction which you can't do. i say first thing as president i would eradicate those barriers that make it impossible for you to access that affordable policy somewhere else. that's going to drive costs down because providers in this area are going to want to compete as opposed to going out of business. they are going to want to compete and i think that's very, very good for the marketplace. so let's take a step back and before we get the $1 trillion that lands on everybody over the next 10 years, with a mandate that may prove to be unconstitutional next summer when the supreme court takes it up not to mention the uncertainty that's been infused for the marketplace for you and others in the small business and don't know what to do about hiring, don't know what to do about infusing capital expenditures into the marketplace so everybody is just sitting on their hands waiting for greater clarity in this particular area. that the clarity that i'm going to bring is i'm going to do away with obamacare. and we're going to sit down -- i'm going to sit down with the 50 governors and we're going to say we'll take two years because the american people can't afford to wait any longer. we're going to take the next year or two and we're going to

find the best approaches for cost containment because we know we can do it and it must be done. and we're going to find the best approaches for things like individual responsibility. 75% of health care spending is in four categories, cancer, cardiovascular, diabetes, obesity. there are choices that every american citizen can make in terms of bringing improvements to the table in terms of overall costs. and we're going to figure out a way to bring about enough in the way of a marketplace of accessible, affordable insurance policies which we haven't even started in this country that will allow us to close the gap on the uninsured. that's what i would like to do. we'll take one more and then we'll let you go. i know we got a game around the table. yes, sir. >> i agree with taking too big to fail less likely we've actually made it worse by

letting banks get even bigger. so can you talk a little bit more about how procedurally you would address that on a related note whether you would favor bringing back some or all of the glass-steagall restrictions? thanks. >> they're good and very powerful thoughts. on glass-steagall, let me just say what i would be willing to do would be in the spirit of glass-steagall. in terms of a remedy, for the banks that are too big to fail, i would impose a fee. it would be an onerous fee and it would cause the banks to say we can't afford to pay that fee so we better divest ourselves of holdings that allow us to go from $2 trillion or whatever down to a size that say commensurate where they were in the mid-1990s. so if they screw up, they can fail. let me give you an example. goldman sachs in the mid-1990s was about $600 billion in size. by 2008, $1.1 trillion in size.

did we get any better as people? was our nation better served by size alone or did we assume more of a risk as taxpayers? we assume more of a risk and so since the economic collapse of several years ago, these banks have only grown bigger because they've been encouraged to buy up these underperforming subsidiaries. so i say i'm going to impose a fee until they get down to a size where they're no longer too big to fail. and then i will withdraw a fee and i think that is the right approach. i think it needs to be done. if we don't, we can fix taxes as we've talked about. we can improve the regulatory environment. we can move toward energy independence and all of that, but we still have a roof hanging over banks that are too big to fail and that is in our long-term interest as people. thank you, everyone, for being here. again, let me reiterate my one request, i just want your vote. that's all i want. and so if you are -- if you like

what you've heard today, go back and read up on our economic proposal that's on the table back there. it makes for great nighttime reading. it is riveting reading from start to finish. you will love it. and take a look where our service years have taken us. as governor and serving this nation overseas. if you like what you see and if you like the choices that i've made as a governor in terms of economic reform, education reform, health care reform -- we did a lot when i was governor, i want your support. i need your support. we can make the change that this nation needs so desperately in the run-up to 2012 but it all starts here in new hampshire. and that happens with you, not me, but you the people. thank you so very much for being here today. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> we appreciate you coming. >> good to see you again. i hope to see some of you and your family at the house. >> if you allow. >> we will make that happen. >> what a great man. >> thanks for being here. i appreciate it. >> hey, governor. >> how are you? thank you for being here. >> it's a pleasure. >> i'm deeply honored. >> we won the caucus there >> you did. >> both democratic and republican. this is my dad mark. >> nothing like a victory -- >> great to see you. thank you for being here and giving us is listening ear. >> that's great. >> and the best of you. you got a great son here. >> i know i do. >> governor, thank you very

much. i appreciate it. >> i'm honored by your presence. what's your name. >> jay. >> and how old are you? >> 15. >> what do you like to do? >> football. [inaudible conversations] >> i got a son playing football at navy who had a big dream early on at football and now he's kind of living his dream, the early stages. you have a dream to play, that would be awesome. do you know what? keep that dream alive right here. think about it all the time and you'll make it happen. you'll make it happen. what's your name? [inaudible] >> how old are you? >> 10 >> what do you like to do? >> i like to play basketball, football. >> you're all jock. >> but good students, too. >> well, listen, that rounds it out. you guys are awesome. thank you for being here. [inaudible conversations]

>> i told you 6 or 7% and now we're 13. >> it was your conversation that got us going. so thank you very much. >> we're moving up. >> thank you for your help in supporting. i totally appreciate it. what's your name? >> elizabeth. >> my daughter's name is elizabeth. how old are you? >> 13. >> what do you like to do? [inaudible] >> i hope it wasn't too boring. good to have you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> here's that article from tehran about the threats. when you get a chance i know you're so busy just when you get a chance and thank you for your great answer for that question. >> hey, listen, thank you for being here. i appreciate it. thank you. thanks very much. hey, you're terrific. [inaudible conversations] >> you were supposed to be a couple of weeks ago but you had to cancel.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you for being here. i hope i can win your vote. >> i'm going to vote for you in the primary. >> thank you for listening here today. >> today is patriotism -- [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> how much are you relying on them to come out -- [inaudible] >> i can't quantify that answer. we're relying of voters on all backgrounds, republicans, independents. they all come out and they all vote and i think this election

cycle and they all care about the issues. i can't give you a specific quantifiable answer other than to say we're targeting everybody who's willing to answer. >> last question. >> you mentioned term limits. what are your specific ideas to congressmen and senators. >> six two year terms for the house and six two year terms in the senate. if you can't do that in that amount of time, you ain't never going to get it done. >> reaction to the iraq war, sorry, the iraq war ended last night our time, some of the candidates have been putting out statements about it. [inaudible conversations] >> the iraq war. >> well, my thoughts are with 4,400 gold star mothers. >> great, thank you.

>> thank you for being here. i appreciate it. [inaudible conversations] >> more road to the white house coverage coming up. we're hoping to take you to the white house shortly, the briefing with jay carney is set to get underway. we will have live coverage of that. likely, we'll hear about white house reaction to the payroll tax cut debate just a short while ago. the senate -- or the house, rather, voted to reject the senate-passed version of the payroll tax cut. the vote there 229-193. and the debate continues. you can follow that on c-span. next up, while we wait for the white house to get underway, we're going to take you to an event with anita perry, the wife

of republican candidate and texas governor rick perry who campaigned on behalf of her husband in hudson, new hampshire, speaking on monday with the ladies auxiliary of the veterans of foreign war. and this is about 30 minutes. >> great. well, thank you. thank you. how are you? >> i'm joe and i live in hudson. >> oh, thank you. >> and i happen to work on your husband's campaign. >> i'm anita. thank you. >> i noticed you were rubbing your hands inside. was that indicative of something? >> cold a little bit? a little bit cooler than what we got. >> it's that time of year when you're trying to -- you really want to do it. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you so much.

we appreciate all your help. thank you. >> thank you. anita perry, good morning. your hands are cold. >> yes, my hand >> are you irish? >> probably, i don't know. maybe. anita perry. >> hello, it's so nice to meet you. >> thank you all. thank you all for coming. >> welcome back to new hampshire.

insof >> you look great there. >> it makes a difference. i told him he needed to start talking like a marine. >> well, thank you. well, hello again. >> how are you? >> good. >> great, it's good to be here. >> hello there. good, how are you? good to see you. >> good to see you. >> how is your mommy? >> my mom is under the weather. she's got vertigo going on now so she's not doing well. [inaudible conversations] >> how are you? good to see you? >> you as well. >> wonderful, nonstop.

you didn't have to stand up. ooh, yum. >> not me. we're busy. [inaudible conversations] >> hello. how are you? >> nice to meet you too. thank you for coming to us. >> absolutely. >> i'm ellen, nice to meet you. >> thank you. hi, there. nice to meet you. >> good.

>> you're here at the hudson vfw. >> i'll introduce you. this is donna fisher. >> we met. >> you did. >> i thanked her for being here. >> i don't know if you met her. >> we did. >> thank you. wonderful. >> can we get started? >> sure. >> good. thank you. hey, good morning -- or good afternoon. >> i'm very pleased to meet you. >> i'm anita. nice to meet you. >> welcome to new hampshire. >> thank you. nice to meet you.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everyone. if you'll please take your seats, we'll start.

for those of you who do not know, my name is beth kimball. i'm the state president for the ladies auxiliary to the veterans of foreign wars and i will be hosting this event today. i would like to begin by recognizing those at the head table beginning on my far right. is ellen. she is the treasurer of the hudson auxiliary and the wife of the commander. and john, next to her is the post commander and representing our state commander is greg lynch, who is the state senior vice vfw commander. at this time, i would like to introduce donna fisher. she is a past president of the ladies auxiliary and she will be talking today. [applause] >> good afternoon. this is a project that was started back in 2004.

it was to -- judge moore and his sister carol had their brother serving in iraq. and they started sending care packages as we all do to our families. unfortunately, not every soldier gets a care package from family. so brian who was serving in iraq asked his family, would you please adopt my unit? and they did. and then other units said, wow, look at the stuff that they get. they get amazing stuff. they must be getting that from moore mart because they're just like wal-mart. so anyway, needless to say, that is how it started. and as to -- every christmas they send christmas stockings to as many soldiers and women that are serving, and i think it's up to right now 4 -- [inaudible] >> the highest amount that -- >> follow this event available online in our video library and

at c-span.org/campaign2012. we'll take you live now to the white house for the briefing with jay carney, which is just getting underway. >> it's good to see you today and take your questions, which i will commence with right now. >> what is the program going to do now that the -- [inaudible] >> what the house did today was refuse take up the bipartisan compromise passed by the senate with 90% approval, more than 80% of republicans voted for it. and i think all of you here are astute enough analysts of washington and congress to know that the reason they refused to vote on that bill is because it

would have passed. it would have resulted in absolute assurance that 160 million americans would not have their taxes go up on january 1st. and that is most unfortunate. it still is available, however, as an option for the house. they can take up the bipartisan compromise that passed overwhelmingly in the senate. the result of a negotiation between the republican leader and the house democratic leader, a negotiation that was the result of a strategy agreed upon by senator reid, senator mcconnell and speaker boehner, a result that was deemed by the speaker of the house to be a good deal in his conversation

with his own colleagues, house republicans. we agree with that assessment. it is absolutely a bipartisan compromise. and it reflects the work that the senate democratic leader and senate republican leader achieved towards a year-long solution to extending the payroll tax cuts. they worked very hard on that. senator reid worked very hard on that bipartisan compromise. they could not quite achieve it in the time allowed and pass a overwhelmingly bipartisan two-month extension assurance to make sure americans did not have their taxes go up in 11 days and 10 hours. 160 million americans. that is absolutely what must get done. and the house still has that option, so we hope they take it? [inaudible] >> he will continue to urge the house to do the responsible

thing, not for him, not for democrats or republicans, not for party but for the american people. look, everyone is for now an extension of the payroll tax cut for a year. i would remind you that we are even in this position of trying to extend the payroll tax cut because the president has been pushing for it since september. everyone is now for it. all leaders of both houses are committed to extending it for a year and we expect absolutely that will happen. but as you know, last week and then on saturday, after negotiations, bipartisan negotiations, between senator mcconnell and senator reid and others, a decision was made that more work needed to be done to reach that full year extension compromise and that as an insurance policy against raising taxes on 160 million americans, this two-month extension of the

payroll tax cut was the right way to go. it's the kind of consensus that that approach created is pretty unprecedented in washington. and definitely unprecedented in 2011 in washington. so we had 90% of the united states senate vote in favor of something that was a tough negotiation compromise between democrats and republicans and i think as you've seen, when you ask what the president will ask congress to do or what the president will do, i mean, he will say what a growing number of republicans are saying. they're saying, please, speaker boehner, please, you know, to our colleagues in the house support what is absolutely the right thing to do here. do not let taxes go up on 160 million americans in just 11 days past the extension. >> can you -- can the president offer any assurances to the

american people that this will get done this year or are his hands tied and it's up to the speaker -- >> well, in order for it to get done it has to pass the house. this is one area where his executive authority does not extend. he cannot order an extension of the payroll tax cut. congress has to take action. he has worked very closely with leaders on the hill to reach this point, and, again, i will point out to you, the president began in september calling for not just an extension of the payroll tax cut to put $1,000 extra a year in average american families' pockets but for an expansion of that. an expansion for the individual tax cut and he pushed -- he called for expanding it to small businesses. he did not get all that he wanted in this compromise. he didn't get that. he originally put forward a way to pay for it that asks congress

to close subsidies and to close -- end corporate subsidies and loopholes and to ask the wealthiest americans to pay more. he didn't get that. he asked to support the democratic proposal in the senate to pay for the payroll tax cut extension with a surtax on the 300,000 wealthiest americans and billionaires in the country in order to fund a tax cut for 160 million middle class americans. we didn't get that. what we got was a compromise worked out by senator reid that was good enough for 90% of the senate, good enough for more than 80% of the republican members in the senate. and certainly the right thing to do for the country. >> and finally, speaker boehner wrote him to ask for the senate to -- [inaudible] >> i assume he does not intend to do that? >> as senator reid has said,

senator mcconnell, speaker boehner had a conversation about what was the best way to proceed, the best way to proceed was to have senator mcconnell and senator reid negotiate a bipartisan compromise. they worked very hard to do that. they worked very hard to reach an agreement on extending the payroll tax cut for a year. they were not able to get that done in time to ensure that taxes wouldn't go up on 160 million americans and so they passed -- they worked out and passed an overwhelming bipartisan majority, both republicans and democrats, a two-month extension and committed the return next year and make sure that that extension was provided for the rest of the year. that was the right approach. what is not the right approach is to refuse to allow the house of representatives to vote on that bipartisan compromise but instead to pass a rule that calls for an approach to this that actually moves further away

from compromise. the provision that is voted on in the house today has been voted on in the house today is actually less bipartisan, filled with more ideological extraneous matter than the version that passed the house and that the senate republican leader wouldn't even allow to come to the vote in the senate because he knew it wouldn't succeed. so there's no indication by the actions of the house leadership today that they're moving towards compromise. the available option here is to vote and pass the bipartisan compromise reached on the senate to extend the payroll for 160 million working americans for two more months and to commit as the leaders who worked that compromise out committed to ensuring early next year that this extension lasts through 2012. that's the approach. the president thinks congress ought to take, that's the

approach they ought to take. mr. young, and welcome to the front row. >> thank you. >> you're tall from up here. [laughter] >> better looking? [laughter] >> just taller. >> just taller. [laughter] >> the president won't ask senator reid to -- [inaudible] >> the president agrees with senator reid and with the 89 senators, republicans and democrats, who voted for the bipartisan compromise that that is the right thing to do. the house should vote on it. i mean, we have a situation where the great preponderance of players in this unnecessary drama agree on one thing. democrats and republicans and a small faction in the house disagree. and their disagreement -- their willingness to not even hold a vote on this bipartisan compromise is essentially a vote to raise taxes. that's what happens on january 1st.

and that's -- that will be the american people -- everyone who get a paycheck, it will be a rude awakening on january 1st when they -- or even before then as the holidays approaches, if they think they have to figure out how they're going to make ends meet next year with $1,000 less. $1,000 more taken out of their weekly -- rather their yearly earnings because the house of representatives, the republicans in the house, refuse to pass, you know, something that got 90% of the u.s. senate including the republican colleagues, colleagues like senator grassley, senator collins, senator snowe, senator heller, senator lugar, senator wicker who all have called on the house to pass this measure. the house ought pass it. >> just in general terms. does the house believe speaker boehner can pass on the

negotiations? >> the issue here isn't negotiating with the speaker of the house because the -- well, i mean, we're focused on the task at hand right now. and the disagreement here is not between the speaker and the president. they both agree that they with you to extend this payroll tax cut by the end of the year but the disagreement here is between the leadership in the house, of the house republicans and the rest of the congress, the republicans in the senate, the democrats in the senate and the administration. and when it comes to what happened this weekend, you know -- the president is not and should not be is a marriage counselor between senate republicans and house republicans. >> on iraq, the political crisis there seems to be escalating, aside from monitoring the situation can the administration do anything? has vice president biden has been asked to step in and oversee this? >> you're referring to --

>> the arrest warrant -- >> as i discussed yesterday, we're obviously concerned about this and we have -- you know, we are always in conversations with iraqi leaders. we closely monitor the reports, and we urge the iraqi authorities charged with this responsibility to conduct their investigations into alleged terrorist activities in accordance with international legal norms and full respect for iraqi law. as i said, we are talking to all parties to express our concern regarding these developments. we continue to urge all sides to work to resolve differences peacefully, through dialog and in a manner that's consistent with the international standards of rule of law, transparency and the democratic political process. ambassador james jeffery as well as other u.s. senior u.s. officials have been in frequent contact with iraqi leaders on this matter and will continue to

do so. >> vice president biden -- >> i don't have any conversations involving the vice president to report out to you. you correctly identified the fact that the vice president is very engaged in iraq as a rule but i don't have any specific conversations of his to report out. i'm going to move it around, yes, ma'am. [inaudible] >> egyptian election -- >> i'm sorry, i didn't quite here the -- [inaudible] >> hold on one second. um, i mean, i can comment generally about what we've seen in egypt of late in the last few days and say that we remain deeply concerned about the violence in egypt. we again reiterate the need for egyptian security forces to respect and protect the

universal rights of all egyptians including the rights to have full expression and assembly. egyptian authorities should also hold accountable those including the security forces who violate these standards. as secretary clinton said yesterday, the promise, the beauty of the revolutionary aspirations that everyone watched unfold in tahrir request, the restraint of the security forces and how they responded, it's how a new egypt will look like we support a timely and inclusive transition to democracy that lives up to this promise. yes. >> thank you, jay. two questions, first one is on japan announced they will buy the f-35 from the u.s. what's the reaction from the white house? >> i don't have a reaction on that. i would refer you to, i guess, the defense department. >> and also we noticed the

president has already reached out to president li and the prime minister and is there any plan for him to reach out to chinese leader or russian leader? and what kind of role that u.s. and china play after kim jong-il's death? >> well, i don't have any additional phone calls to read out on this matter involving the president. we are reaching out to all of our allies and partners in the region as i mentioned yesterday, and we'll continue to do so. we work with all our allies and partners on this issue, and we'll continue to, and we wi will -- or i will simply add to what i said yesterday that we hope the new north korean leadership will take the steps necessary to support peace, prosperity and a better future for the north korean people, including through acting on its

commitments to denuclearization. in the back, nora? >> first, on the payroll tax cut, speaker boehner has said that they will adjourn at the end of the day. there are no plans for the senate to return. will the president stay in washington while congress is away? >> the president is here and is very focused on the need of -- for congress to take the appropriate action to make sure the americans do not have their taxes go up on january 1st. he believes the absolutely right course of action here is for the house to take up the senate bill. that it's already garnered overwhelming bipartisan support in the senate. and to pass that bill so that americans don't have their taxes

go up. while you know what speaker boehner said, the fact is it remains an option for the house to do that. and i think it is the result of avoidance, if you will, that the house resulted to a sort of parliamentary machiniations to avoid actually voting on a measure that got such sweeping bipartisan support in the senate because i think it's safe to say they were worried, they the republicans, that america's taxes wouldn't go up which is just mighty unfortunate because like this is not a game. for people who are struggling to make ends meet, $1,000 is a big deal. and it is absolutely essential that the house reconsider its

approach to this except that leaders in both parties of both houses and that the president of the united states are all committed to a full year extension. the president has been hammering on this issue since september, as you know. and what the senate leadership, both republican and democrat decided is that they didn't have enough time to finish the one-year extension so they decided that what was absolutely essential is that americans don't have their taxes go up, in just 11 days and so they passed by a vote of 89-10 a bipartisan compromise to extend the payroll tax cut for two months. the house ought to follow suit. >> that is correct that the president has been hammering about this since september but it looks like the president is going to be left standing at the altar on this one?

>> but here's the problem with that approach to this, the premise behind that question, is that somehow this has to do with the presidential -- the president winning or losing. this is not a game. it's not politics. it's americans' livelihoods. it's their paychecks of 1,000 bucks on average. and i think the nature of your question correctly identifies the irony that were it not for the fact that president obama supports this payroll tax cut, i suspect it would pass overwhelmingly in the house of representatives. after all, republicans in the early days of 2009 when we were in an economic free-fall and people were proposing different ideas for how we should approach our economic problems and how we should get the economy growing instead of shrinking, many republicans came out in support of the payroll tax cut. some of them came out in support of a two-month payroll tax

holiday. >> will you reiterate that the president plans to stay in washington until the payroll tax cut is passed? >> the president intends to stay and work with congress to ensure that americans don't have their taxes go up. let's be clear about where the power to make that happen reside. the president supports this bipartisan compromise, and then the democrats support the compromise bipartisan and the senate republicans support this bipartisan compromise. at least a handful or not more on the record house republicans support this bipartisan compromise, i suspect that many, many more do. the holdout here -- the holdouts are very much in the minority. the house better vote. >> now that american forces are out of iraq, the vice president

acknowledged -- [inaudible] >> does the u.s. want to be involved now at all in eliminating sectarian tensions or is iraq as the president said at fort bragg in the hands of the iraqi people? >> well, iraq is a sovereign nation, and it is very much in the hands of iraqi leaders as well as the iraqi people, the future of that country. we will absolutely continue to engage directly with iraq in a very robust relationship that involves diplomatic educational economic and other ties including security ties, to help iraq as it further develops as a democratic nation. so as i mentioned earlier in response to a question about this, we are speaking with iraqi

leaders from all sides about this specific matter. and would be any way on the variety of other challenges that they face because we have very strong relationships and are very committed to helping iraq build on the remarkable progress that thanks to our efforts, the efforts of our troops as well as our civilians and, of course, the remarkable efforts of the iraqi people and their leaders towards creating a stable and prosperous and democratic country. so we have tried throughout this period that marks the end of the iraq war to make clear that the end of the war does not mean an end to our relationship with iraq. we want a strong and vibrant relationship with iraq and we will continue to work with iraqi leaders and iraqi institutions

to develop that relationship. >> in response to one of dan's questions you said the president shouldn't have to pay the role of marriage counselor. why doesn't the president play that role or any kind of counselor in order to get this deal done to protect the middle class americans that you have been saying and others have been as well. >> it's a good question. the president's approach has been focused on -- his strategy has been focused on getting this very important piece of business done for the american people. he put it on the table in september as part of the american jobs act. he called for not just an extension of the payroll tax cut but an expansion so that if his proposal had passed, if he got his way in its entirety, americans wouldn't just have $1,000 extra next year. they would have had on average $1550 extra. if he had gotten his way in his

proposal entirely, small businesses would have had a payroll tax cut. so then he worked with senate leadership on an alternative way to pay for that measure. and he has worked with senate leadership on the efforts to reach a bipartisan compromise on a year-long extension as well as on the two-month insurance policy that senators reid and mcconnell worked out. and worked out -- i mean, let's just be clear, with the full knowledge of the house leadership. and it is, again, you have to be a rube about how washington works to believe that senate leaders of both parties would have worked out a compromise on this issue that resulted in a vote of 89-10 without careful communication with house leadership.

so we are at this point where a bipartisan compromise and solution exists precisely because of the president's leadership. and my point in my admittedly glib comment was that the issue here isn't about what the president can work out with the speaker of the house because the issue is that an overwhelming majority in congress of republicans and democrats, want one thing, which is to make sure that americans don't have their taxes go up on january 1st. and for political reasons or ideological reasons, for reasons that we've yet to fathom, the house republican leadership wants something else. and i think that is, as we've increasingly seen, as we've heard from republicans, senators and others puts the house republican leadership at odds

with the interest of republicans generally. and that's -- that's a conflict that they need to resolve on behalf of the american people. again, going back to, i think, somebody else's question, this is not president obama. i mean, we are in this ironic situation where we're now arguing over whether or not the republican house of representatives is going to allow a tax cut for most americans in spite of the fact that the president supports it, who happens to be a democrat. it kind of turns conventional wisdom on its head about the priorities of different parties. and that's because in part this president's priority is the american economy and the need to create jobs. put aside all the political posturing and who's up and who's down and who wins and who's to blame, the president wants this because he thinks it's vitally

important to the economy. we have had some good news lately with the economy. you know, we have a lot of work to do but there are some signs of improvement. and what outside economists have said is that if we do not extend the payroll tax cut, that could have a very negative effect on an economy that is just beginning to show some positive signs. the president wants this not as a political victory but because his number 1 priority is growing the economy and creating -- helping the economy create more jobs so that fewer americans are looking for work and more americans are employed and have the means to ensure that they can pay their bills and send their kids to school. >> one other question, i know

you often don't like to talk about polls but there's a new poll that came out that shows the president's numbers are much better than they were just last month. his approval rating 29% now compared to 44% in november disapproval 48% now compared to the 54% in november. any comment on that? what do you attribute that to? >> i will simply say that polls go up and down. we live in a very challenging political environment and more importantly in a tingley challenging economic environment. this president's focused on the challenging economic environment and focusing on that he has to contend with the challenging political environment. but right now he is committed to working with congress and doing the things he can do outside of congress to grow the economy and

help it create jobs. and i think that, you know, these last several months, that focus has been pretty clear. and he's going to continue that focus. so and the impact that has on polls, you know, remains to be seen. but the -- but it is his primary focus as president. >> yeah, i was just going to have a final point. are you saying there's a scenario that's possible on december 25th where the president wakes and, again, it's a wonderful life is on and puts on his christmas sweater in the white house and he's all alone -- >> he and john boehner. >> yeah, he invites john boehner over. is it possible him to spend christmas alone at the white house? >> i think it would be -- [laughter] >> would you be available if -- >> i have an opening, yes.

[laughter] >> this is going to -- when he hears this, this is going to change his opinion about -- >> he'll go to hawaii. >> look, i'm reluctant to say where he's going to be on which day because i don't want to make this about him. and also it is a very fluid situation. today the house -- overnight, the house abruptly avoided voting on the available senate bipartisan compromise to engage in some political theater. and then -- but what remains true is although they have done that is that available bipartisan compromise is still there, or is still available. so it's hard to know what tomorrow is going to look like, what the next day is going to look like as this saga continues. what the president will continue to articulate is his firm police chief that, a, he and every

leader in congress is committed to extending the payroll tax cut for a year. b, that we need to make sure as an insurance policy against of taxes going up in 11 days on 160 million americans that we pass the bipartisan compromise that extends the payroll tax cut for two months. beyond that, my crystal ball is very cloudy so i can't really tell you. i'm sure -- i mean, i know the president wants to see his daughters and his wife, but right now, we're focused on urging congress to do the right thing. urging the house of representatives, the republicans and the house of representatives the leadership of the republicans in the house of representatives to do the right thing. >> do you dismiss the concerns that have been raised putting aside all the other issues that are out there, dismiss some concerns by some payroll experts who say -- practicalcally

speaking that it's going to be difficult to implement any policy. do you agree at all? >> i don't dismiss it. >> i understand that when congress waits till the last minute to do something like this, as it did last year, it creates some challenges and complicatio complications. but as i said yesterday, the president is committed to asking his administration to work with american businesses to overcome whatever complications this might cause. he would rather do that, rather make that request of his administration than ask americans to spend the holidays worrying about how they're going to deal with $1,000 less next year. >> okay. and i hope this doesn't affect my christmas day invitation, but -- [laughter] >> if you feel like john boehner and the house republicans are blocking the payroll tax cut extension and many times you've said republicans are out to stop him practical atley -- practically at every turn but how was president obama say to say his accomplishments are only

beaten by three other presidents in american history? >> he was talking about legislative accomplishments. >> right. [inaudible] >> i'm sorry to interrupt you but -- >> it's all yours, sir. >> thank you. >> well, good afternoon, everybody. it is no secret that there hasn't been an abundance of partisanship in washington this year. and that's why what happened on saturday was such a big deal. nearly the entire senate, including almost all of the republicans voted to prevent 160 million working americans from receiving a tax increase on january 1st. nearly the entire senate voted to make sure that nearly 2.5 million americans were out there looking for a job, or lose their unemployment in the first two months of next year. and just about everybody, democrats, and republicans,

committed to making sure that early next year we find a way to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance through the end of 2012. but now even though republicans and democrats in the senate were willing to compromise for the good of the country, a faction of republicans in the house are refusing to even vote on the senate bill, a bill that cuts taxes for 160 million americans. and because of their refusal to cooperate, all those americans could face a tax hike in just 11 days. and misof americans who are out there looking for work, could find their unemployment insurance expired. now, let's be clear. right now the bipartisan compromise that was reached on saturday is the only viable way to prevent a tax hike on january 1st. it's the only one. all the leaders in congress,

democrats and republicans, say they are committed to making sure we extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for the entire year. and by the way, this is something i called for months ago. the issue is, that the republican and democratic leaders of the senate worked on a one-year deal, made good progress, had determined that they needed more time to reach an agreement. and that's why they passed an insurance policy to make sure the taxes don't go up on january 1st. in fact, the house republicans say they don't dispute the need for a payroll tax cut. what they are really trying to do, what they're holding out for is to bring concessions from democrats on issues that have nothing to do with the payroll tax cut, issues where the parties fundamentally disagree.

so a one-year deal is not an hirsch we will come to that agreement as long as it's focused on the payroll tax cuts and unemployment insurance and not focused on extraneous issues. the issue right now is this, the clock is ticking. time is running out. and if the house republicans refuse to vote for the senate bill, or even allow it to come up for a vote, taxes will go up in 11 days. i saw today that one of the house republicans referred to what they're doing as, quote, high stakes poker. he's right about the stakes but this is not poker. this is not a game. it shouldn't be politics as usual. right now the recovery is fragile but it is moving in the right direction. our failure on what we're doing could have effects not only on families but on the economy on a whole. it's not a game for families who

don't have an extra thousand bucks to lose. it's not a game for somebody who's out there looking for work right now. he might lose his house if unemployment insurance doesn't come through. this is not a game for the millions of americans who will take a hit when the entire economy grows more slowly because these proposals aren't extended. you know, i just got back from a ceremony at andrews air force base where we received a flag and the colors that our troops fought under in iraq. and i met with some of the last men and women to return home from that war. and these americans and all americans who serve are the embodiment of courage, and selflessness and patriotism. and when they fight together and sometimes die together, they don't know and they certainly don't care who's a democrat and who's a republican and how somebody's doing in the polls, how this might play in the spin room. they work as a team. and they do their job.

and they do it for something bigger than themselves. the people in this town need to learn something from them. we have more important things to worry about than politics right now. we have more important things to worry about than saving face, or figuring out internal caucus politics. we have people who are counting on us to make their lives just a little bit easier, build an economy where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded. and we owe it to them to come together right now and do the right thing. that's what the senate did. democrats and republicans in the senate said we're going to put our fights on other issues aside and go ahead and do what's right, on something we all agree to. let's go ahead and do it.

we'll have time later for the politics. we'll have time later to have fights around a whole bunch of other issues. right now, though, we know this is good for the economy and they went ahead and did the right thing. i need the speaker and house republicans to do the same. put politics aside, put aside issues where there are fundamental disagreements and come together on something we agree on. and let's not play brinksmanship. the american people are weary of it. they're tired of it. they expect better. calling on the speaker and the house republican leadership to bring up the senate bill for a vote and give the american people the assurance they need in this holiday season. thank you.

.. .. it is simply a call by the president for the house of representatives comment feature of the republican party and house of representatives of the exam of the senate and act in an overwhelmingly to ensure that american taxes don't go out january 1st.

[inaudible] >> house republicans got their main issue with that though [inaudible] >> well, i will point you back to what the president sad and i said, which is that as part of the approach that was agreed upon by the speaker of the house, the senate republican leader, the senate democratic leader worked very hard on a bipartisan compromise to extend the payroll tax cut for a year. they made great progress and were not able to get it done in time and they believe what was of the utmost importance was that they reach a compromise to extend the payroll tax cut to

ensure that americans don't have taxes go up on january 1st, that they committed to come back and finish the work that would lead to a year-long extension. this is that flowed to president bush. is simply a fallacy to suggest this is one year versus two months. everyone is for one year. in fact and i won't bore you with reading all the quotations that exist, this president has been pushing for a one-year expansion formats come and issue a great republican existence to even that idea. his commitment to a doing this for a year i think is beyond doubt. what concerns him is that a spouse does not take action on the senate compromise, taxes go up. on 160 million americans. the avenue on of those problem that the house leadership

created is obvious and clear to everyone. a vote on the senate bill. it didn't pass the 51, 49. the vice president come in and break a tie. it passed 89 to 10. that's huge. they don't catch much bigger than not on things that are post office is. so that is the right way to go. >> nancy pelosi was saying it's the extreme tea party at house republicans and they are getting in the way of tax credits for americans. does the administration but the key party is behind this? >> i think as i sat and i can say again that is what is clear that based on an abundance of reporting is that the speaker believes that this is a good deal, that he thought house

republicans are to support it. and then he changed his position because of the strong opposition at the strong segment or aliment of this conference. you know, you are a better student of the republican party politics than i am now, but certainly some folks would use that label. to me it's irrelevant. it is simply that a small faction of one party and one house is blocking a compromise that has been agreed to overwhelmingly by everyone also both parties. look, the fact of the matter is if the extension doesn't happen in taxes go up, people are going to remember. the american people want remember who won, his save face who won the political battle in the middle of december. they'll just remember their taxes went up in the going to be rightfully angry about it.

it is for that reason that would react to not worry about whether or not they distract it to political conceptions that would somehow made to make giving a tax cut palatable. that is to be what it meant to be a republican. bill evan jenne. >> jay, there's just one thought of this equation. which is if you had to tell us right now the republican members of congress that are to be running out of time. in effect, the house is gone except for the -- [inaudible] >> will call him the speaker to do what is necessary to have the house vote on this bipartisan compromise. >> are now back to town? >> if he feels the last act of the republicans in the house in

the year 2011 is a vote to raise on american and that is what he wants it to be coming to take that approach. it is the wrong approach for the country. again, going back to me and say, it is not about political winners or losers. it is about average folks, their paychecks and the fact that it is so unnecessary to make americans worry about whether taxes are going up as they are spending the holidays with their families. there's an overwhelming partisan consensus that should not happen. there's been a bill passed out of the senate, 89 to 10 that would prevent it from happening. but for the projection fraction of a small house and its leadership, it would have happened in the president would've signed it into law. >> jackie. >> speaker boehner --

[inaudible] does harry reid called the shots here now as we go forward? >> harry reid, senate majority leader works hard at the senate republican leader to fashion a bipartisan compromise in the senate that is exactly what i just described it as, a bipartisan compromise. it is not the bill the president put forward. it's not the bill senate democrats put forward. it's a compromise of democrats in the senate in terms of the extent of the tax reduction. the president wanted more and in the way that it's paid for. and even announce providing the political scalp is some thought was necessary in the republican party has within it some extraneous, ideological measures that is available to the house.

the house is not even voted on it. they have not disposed of it. it remains as an option for the house to take action. senator reid, senator mcconnell worked hard to get the one-year extension done before the end of the year. it was very judgment, their bipartisan judgment echoed by the 89, 10 vote that their two-month extension received that it was not possible to reach final agreement on a one-year extension in time and they did not want to risk american tax -- middle-class american orders have in their taxes go up in january 1st as a result of the need to spend a little more time reaching the full year agreement. that is the right approach. what is not in doubt is that the president, senator reid, senator

mcconnell and the speaker of the house all agree and leader pelosi all agree. >> will break away from jay carney to take you to the capitol to hear from speaker boehner and other gop leaders. >> the president -- the president and leaders of both houses of congress have called for a year-long extension of the payroll tax credit. the house has passed a bill that would do just that. it would extend and reform unemployment insurance, protect social security and create jobs. we are proud of the bill that we passed. the house passed with bipartisan support. we also understand the senate passed a different bill. we oppose that bill because the two-month extension will create more uncertainty for job creators in our country and

millions of americans are out of work. the payroll processing company say that the senate bill is unworkable and so complex that many americans may not even get a tax credit. so today, we have voted to go to a formal conference to resolve the difference is between the two bills. this is a system that our founders gave us. it is as old as our nation and as clear as the common situation. our house gop negotiators are here and ready to work with their counterparts in the senate to resolve the differences as quickly as possible. our negotiators are kevin rady, david kamp, renate helmers, nan hayworth, tom price, tom reid, fred upton and greg walton. now it's up to the president to show real leadership. he said that he won't leave town for the holidays until this bill

is done. the next step is clear. i think president obama needs to: senate democrats to go back into session, move to a conference then sit down and resolve this bill is quick as possible. i sent a letter to the president today, asking him to do just this. we've done our work for the american people and outset to the president, democrats in senate to do their jobs well. i'll take a couple questions. [inaudible] >> we have done our job. all we need now is to resolve our differences. a two-month extension is nothing more than kicking the can down the road. the president has asked us to do this for a full year. we did it for a full year. we offset the cost with reasonable offsets. there's no reason we can't do this. if you remember just several weeks ago, the house had passed

the dod authorization bill. the senate passed tears. in a period of less than a week, they were able to resolve the differences in these two very large bill. there is no reason why we can't resolve this in short order. >> if senator reid were to stay, let's say, were to start and solve this. could you not forge ahead with the conference committee? [inaudible] >> there's a lot of ways to resolve this. we are doing this under what we would call regular order. the system that our founders us compares the difference between the two houses. we sit down and resolve those differences. >> remembers going to go home for the holidays until this assault? >> our negotiators are here, ready and able to work. members of the leadership will

be here, ready and able to work it will be available to do what needs to be done. the issue now is bringing them to the table so we can resolve this and get to the president what he has asked us to give them, a one-year extension of these expiring programs. >> the president of course has just said, i need john boehner to help out. >> i made the president to help out. [cheers and applause] >> speaker, i have a question. last night he's asking you to help out and of course the fact that she will take up the senate bill, which you have not done. any chance of that happening? >> the senate bill. we party taken up the senate bill. we reject the senate bill and remove to go to conference.

under the rules of the congress, that means the papers that were in our possession are on their way back to the united states senate. idr mark >> the senate voted to give the american people $166 tax cut. we voted to give the american people a thousand dollars tax cut. we are going to insist on doing this the right way. >> you guys have been working on this for weeks and haven't been able to come to an agreement. what makes you feel you can actually do that now? >> well, we've not been working on this for weeks. i want to make clear. i've told the senate leaders, both senator reid and senator mcconnell that there would be no negotiations with the house until such time as the senate passed the bill. i meant what i said.

and when they were getting ready to pass this on somebody passed onto me what they thought it would look like, i made it clear to them at that point that i was uncomfortable with where they were going. i expressed my displeasure. and once again, taking the convenient route and not doing the people's work. thanks, everybody. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> speaker boehner and other republicans talking about the payroll tax cut just a short while ago on the house floor

that the house rejected the senate bill by a vote of 229 to 193 requested to go to conference at the u.s. senate. he heard a short while ago from president obama who called on the house to pass the senate's version of bill. in the house meanwhile, the continued debate on both the democratic version and republican version of the payroll tax cut plan. you can follow the debate as it continues later on this afternoon. all that is left in our computing network, c-span. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> house republican leaders finally now dr. john boehner's comments. again earlier, the house rejected the payroll tax cut bill, the short-term extension of the payroll tax cut plan by a vote of 229 to 198. the debate is not over. it continues on the house floor and that is now live on stand.

-- live on c-span. >> several british tabloid newspapers have been accused of hacking into the zones of celebrities, members of the royal family and friends that guns.

>> he was joined by his wife in south carolina governor, nikki haley who endorsed mr. romney on friday of last week. this campaign appearances almost an hour.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [cheers and applause] >> well, hello myrtle beach.le h that is a wonderful welcome. we appreciate that it would of been in south carolina and here with your governor, said thank [ause]l very much for that welcome. [applause] i am going to introduce mitt.rsu

first i will introduce nikki anc she will introduce mitt. i want toki tell you tell you aw things about mitt that you might not know. we are high school sweethearts. [applause] anda the nic thing about high school sweethearts is that we can still be in love, 42 years later, five sons, five daughters, 16 grandchildren. [applause] i think some of you know that we have had an interesting life together. . i have seen him as a husband and father and those are the things that are the most near and dear to me. so those of the things that make the most difference in my life. he was there when i was a young mom, reminding me all the time that my job was more important than his job. i appreciate it that. he said a job is forever, -- a

job is temporary, and a family is forever. he had the perspective when he was a young man. i appreciate it that. i saw him be successful in business. i saw them be successful at the olympics and i saw him as his success as a governor. but seeing him were all of these different hats. what i see right now is a country that need a leader. [cheers and applause] i also see that america is going in the wrong direction and we do not like it and we want to change it. so i will turn the time over to nicki so she can say why she is supporting mitt. thank you all for being so helpful and warm. >> thank you. what a great crowd. hello to you back in the back.

it is great to see. first of all, i have told the romneys in south carolina we have great energy and a great patriotism. can you been too -- show mitt romney a great grand strand welcome? [cheesr anrs and applause] dthank you. those are the south carolina and i know and love. we are thrilled to be here. i have to tell you that i am so fortunate because i am incredibly proud to be married to a man that puts on a military uniform every day. we have the coolest first man ever here with us. markell is here today, too. -- michael is here today, too.

[applause] so we have gone all around the state and i have basically talked about a decision that michael and i decided to make, which was we knew that we needed to endorse for president. and i want to tell you a little bit about the process we went through, because one of the hardest things i have found being governor of south carolina is the federal government. it's in my way every day, whether it is dealing with illegal immigration, whether it is dealing with motor i.d. with the nlrb tried to take jobs away from boeing, every day i have had to deal with the federal government. as much as the legislature. the one thing i knew was that the biggest issues that face all of you that you tell me every day that i know we are dealing with across this country are jobs, the economy, and spending.

and i looked to see where is he fault of the jobs, it's washington, d.c. i did not want to endorse anyone that had anything to do with washington, d.c. [applause] the second thing i knew was i have always said it is not about what we say it is what we do. and it is about us showing your results. and what i saw was governor romney had fixed broken businesses and made them successful. he took a weekend olympics -- weakened olympics and made it a source of pride for our country. absolutely. [applause] but on top of all of that, here was a governor that balanced his budget in massachusetts, cut taxes 19 times, get ready for

it, with an 85% democrat legislature. [applause] so we are going to the process, so we talk about how we do not want d.c. we talk about somebody with results. and then you look at the fact that we are a military family and we very much care about those who have served and those that continue to serve, and we wanted someone and found it in governor romney, that belie ves you strengthen your military. you do not know -- do what the president did and weaken your military. we should not look at who could win. we should always look at who should win. and the icing on the cake is when michael and i realized that governor romney was one that

should win. the icing on the cake is that he is the only one the president obama continues to hit over and over again. you know what that tells me? he will also be the one that could win. as governor of south carolina, telling my constituents of south carolina, we cannot afford four more years of president obama. and so it is with that that michael and diane, with great humility, great support and gre at excitement choose to endorse governor mitt romney as the next president of the united states. [applause] so as we go through through thesthese next few weeks, i

will ask you to do what you did for me. i went to all of you and said, if you like what i have to say, go tell 10 people. we went from the fourth place to first place because you chose to care. i will say the same thing to you. ask him the questions you want to know. find out the information you can find out, but when you get done, go home and tell 10 people. when we do that, you are now looking at the next president of the united states -- governor mitt romney. >> thank you, governor. thank you, governor. thank you. thank you, guys. what a warm and generous response. i will give a chance to ask you questions, but i want touto chat

a bit. that's right. you get to as many questions. this has been a long day. you live in a wonderful place. you are really licuk ucky. myrtle beach is beautiful. the weather. is it always like this in the middle of december? always sunny and warm. 65-70 degrees today. a duck pond over there. a beautiful thing. a lot of things i like -- the beach, the ocean, the duck pond. how about sticky fingers? i had some barbecue at lucnh. nch. they have to roll me home. u.s. something else that is good and you have a terrific governor. -- you have thing else that is

good. i thought i might tell you a bit about why i feel about the country the way i do. i have not done this since i have been in south carolina. i learned to fall in love in america when i was a boy because my mom and dad loved this country. my dad was born in mexico -- american parents living there at about age 5 or 6 years old, they came back to the u.s. and went from los angeles to iadh tdaho o utah. he went broke more than once. my dad was a carpenter. are drywall carpenter. he never had the time or money to put together to get a college degree. but in america, if you are willing to work hard and get as much education as you can, you can sometimes accomplish your dreams. he did. he became head of the car company that sold ramblers.

remember them? if sold ramblers and later jeeps. then he became governor of the state. remarkable country. he always believed in america. when weaver young, my sisters and brother and i, he made sure we got to see more than where we were aboard and raids, which was destroyed. we got to go around and see the rest of the country. he put us in the rambler. troublous from national park to national park. we slept in the car. -- traveled from national park to a national park. he wanted us to see the mountains and canyons and the six koreas and the oceans. we fell in love with the beauty of the land. i also came to understand something about the character of the people that fashioned informed america. because of dad would tell stories about the founding fathers and mom would read to us from various books that told us about the subtle way of the country. one book by irving stone was

called "men to match my mountains." it told stories of the women and men that took a risk and championed the building of this country. and i was telling this story to a fellow a number of weeks ago and he said, did you know the name of that book was taken from a poem? i did not. then he recited a poem. i was kind of impressed. this was after 50 years, he remembered a poem from high school. i have since learned the first four lines because i think they are relevant to what the poet thought would make america an extraordinary country, a unique country. to match my men melons, men to match my plans, men with empires in their -- " the idea is that this country would be built by men and women with employers in their purpose

-- empires in their purpose. empires of construction and innovation and pioneering. that is the kind of people that would change the world. you look back at the country's history and that is what we have seen all along. the founders had this extraordinary innovation that the king was not sovereign but he citizen was, that the citizen was endowed with an annual rights. that brought in and you hear that change the world. you had technologies. in the 1800's -- 8050 there was a world's fair in london. i read about this over the summer. the author said that each country was invited to send a display, and from america can be as big crates. it was a mccormick reaper that would do the work of 40 men. they put it together and it did

just that and it changed the world. people were able to be freed from the firms to comment to cities and build an industrial age. henry ford and the assembly line change the world again. more recently, the computer and the new economy and software and internet. america keeps inventing. men and women with empires and their purpose. it's uniqquue in this country. we are ahead of the great countries came from because of that innovative spirit of america. i do not think president obama understand america. i do not think he understands what makes our economy so strong. [applause] i think he believes it's government, government is stepping in to tell businesses and individuals what to do. he does not get it. what in america what makes a strong is not our government telling us what to do, but the

government allowing us to be free to follow our own passions. that is what makes america great. [applause] the founders had such an extraordinary choice they made. they described the things that were inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. the right we would have to choose our course and live, to pursue happiness as we wished. so people like steve jobs came along and found ways to change all things that could happen -- just amazing what has happened in this country. those few individuals that have such extraordinary vision. those visions do not make the rest of us poorer. people choosing their course of life that does that. i love this country. i think it is time that we have a president and understand it as free people and not big government that makes us strong. [applause]

let me mention a couple of the things and turn to you for your questions. the other thing that i think the president misses is i think he somehow imagines that if we keep on spending and spending and borrowing that things will get better. that is not how it works. we are at a point now where we -- were spending has become such a risk that i am afraid the next generation could be stuck with our bills. i think it is not immoral for us to pass on to the next generation huge debts and liabilities they cannot pay off. i also recognize we are probably headed towards oa greece wall. in some respects, i think our president wants us to become more like europe. europe is not working in europe. i want to keep america america. i want to make sure our principal stay strong -- p

rinciples stay strong. let me mention this -- what is the right course for our military? there are some who have the view that america's time has come and gone. that this next century will be a post-american center. in their view what we have to do it is a piece or accommodate these other people in the world that are getting stronger. the world is not safe for. that is the only justification i can come with further justification to shrink our military. the president has cut the military budget by almost $1 trillion over the next 10 years. the secretary of defense said that is a doomsday scenario. think of that. our navy some years ago was asked how many ships we had to have as the absolute minimum to be able to fulfil our mission and the world, and they said 131. w313.

we have fewer ships now than anytime since 1917. our air force is older and smaller than anytime since 1947. our present was to cut the number of active-duty personnel, in spite of the fact receding rotations at a very high level of men and women going back into active service in far off places. we are not always caring for the veterans the way we should. i want to increase our shipbuilding fr. update our air force. i want to add instead of subtracting 50,000 personnel from are active duty roster. i want to add 100,000. i want to make sure that as we save money, and we will, it needs to be overhauled and streamlined. i want to make sure that in addition to the programs i described that we care for the veterans the way they deserve to be treated.

[applause] and so i want to see an america that is strong. i want to see an america with strong values in our homes, the police fundamentally our american principles. i want to see an america with an economy that is second to none in the world. that will only happen if we are the pioneering, constructing economy we have seen in the past. i want to see an america that has a strong military, an america that agrees not to spend more money than we take in. those are my priorities. i want to make sure we elect a president who has the kind of you that america should continue to lead the world, that this next century is an american century where america leads the world. and i will be that kind of president with your help. thank you. thank you. thank you. [applause] now it's your turn.

ok. thank you, guys. this front section is getting a lot of exercise. this is great. boy, we are enthusiastic in myrtle beach today. let me turn to for questions that you may have. yes, sir. yellow shirt. >> my question has to do with character. benjamin franklin, one of our forefathers, was a man who believed that he could improve themselves and he devised a way whereby to do that designing several virtues that he thought would help them to be a better person. northeast started with temperance. went on from there to frugality and ultimately to chastity, which is one of the challenges he faces. he added the number 13 virtue --

humility, which he felt was required of any leader. what i would like to ask is, as a person running for president, we know how important character is a a -- personal character. we also know that every candidate has a vises and flaws. we recognize that. we want to -- we will not ask you to identify those. >> thank you. we only have so much time. >> what is the single most of virtue of character that you think you bring to the office of president of the united states? >> boy, that's a -- um. let me give that some thought for a second. the single most virtue. >> poll the audience. >> leadership is in some respects a product of character, which is that you look at people and say, why is that person a leader?

what makes them a leader? sometimes you see a young girl or older person and you say, that person is a leader. it is not just the ability to talk fast are well. it is to invest in the people are around them because they see a person of character. for me that quintessential part of character is integrity, which is a do you live -- i aspire to be a person of integrity. i am trying to balance your humility.tue andoof i aspire and try to live my life in a way that is consistent with what my values are. the lack of integrity or hypocrisy is where you say one thing and you have certain values, but then you live by something entirely different than that. but humility in my life is frequently provided by my five sons and my wife. they point out my a shortcoming.

if for some reason they miss one or two, these guys with the cameras help me out. [applause] thank you. this guy here. >> do you remember me from last time? i have pictures of us. >> how could i forget year? what is on your jacket. >> north pittsburgh. >> we have another pittsburgh fans. >> my question is, why did you put romney-care in the state of massachusetts, and do you regretted? >> the answer is i am proud of what we did and did not regret it. let me tell you why we did it. we had 8% of our people in our state that did not have health insurance. and we went to find out why. some cannot afford insurance, but some have figured out that if they just dropped their insurance, did not pay for it,

that if they got sick they could go to the hospital and get free care paid for by government. so they were saying, why should i buy something i can get for free? that does not make sense. so we have to find a way to get everybody in the system to take personal responsibility. the way we came up with it was not perfect. there are some things i would change. there are some things i tried to change at the time, but you heard from the governor, that the legislature was 85% democrat. elections have consequences. let me tell you some things that are different between what we did and what the president has done and why, on the first day in office, i will take action to stop obama-care and repeal obama-care. [applause] so i'll metnio ention a few thi.

one it raised taxes by $500 billion. two, he cut medicare by $500 billion to put in place is obama-care. number 3, he took the power that states have always had to care for the uninsured and grabbed that into the federal government in violation of the 10th amendment. i hope the supreme court says it is unconstitutional. [applause] and finally, on e more thing. we had 8% of our people that were uninsured. nothing changed for the 92%. our bill as 70 pages. his 2,700 page piece of legislation, does not just change health care for people who do not have insurance.

it takes over health care altogether. it will be defeated. i will get rid of it. that is one of the things i will do as president. thank you. >> hi. glad you're hear. we send millions more to other countries. a lot of these countries want to kill us. i do not get this. we have a hungry people, jobless people, what can you do to keep our money here? >> thank you. thank you. you know, the term for an aid is really a bucket of a lot of things where we send money to other places. if in sending money to other places, we are doing it in order to keep our own troops from having to be there or perhaps drawing of into conflict, we are trading our defense department, and our lives of our sons and daughters, then that makes sense. if there is a place such as israel where we think the whole place could become of boiling

cauldron, we will send money to help them protect themselves and keep conflict from breaking out and that will save american lives and save lives there. that makes sense. but where we send money to nations that do not like us, it is not a military purpose, but where they do not like us and we are trying to buy friends. i think you are in friendship. you do not try to buy it. we sent $27 million -- guess where? to china. for them to clean up their environment. really, as you say this does not make any sense. i will stop sending money to places that do not like us, that do not stand with us when we need them to, and make sure our priorities is to keep america's security and keep us strong. [applause] >> good afternoon. thank you for coming. i am linda hopkins. i have spent my life in a form of public service or another --

education. even though i am retired, i still teach part-time at tech. i have such concern about jobs. i have people in my class is you are 54 years old who have lost jobs. nobody wants them because of age. there is truly a great ceiling. there are kids in there who are seniors in high school. we have a pace program here. so much of what i see -- i was born between the depression and the second world war, much of what i see is a deborah a -- desperate place in reference to jobs. i am of fierce independence. and i was not so crazy about the jobs bill, but it made me think about something. and that was what really rescued this country in the 1930's. those were programs called the wpa, the works projects administration and the civilian concentration -- conservation

corps. concentration it was for some, they thought, once they got in there and started digging around. but we still profit from those today, from our national parks. the stadium that our kids played in high school was built then. i worked in virginia. our kids went to a river rock school that was built by wpa. it brought young people in there. it gave them jobs and purpose. we probably have some people sitting here right now that was a part of that. i just see us in such trouble right now. our infrastructure is crumbling. to me, a a program similar to that would be a place to repair the road and bridges. the bridges and south carolina are in terrible condition. it would put people to work. it would also put money into the

economy because there would be spending money, and maybe get some of these things fixed. is anybody thought about that? -- has anybody thought about that? >> people are thinking about things like that. the president went out and borrow $787 billion. a remarkable amount of money. a huge, massive borrowing, and said he was going to spend the money to put people to work. and after you put that money in place, the private sector continued to lose the jobs, and the governmental sector added 135,000 jobs. and very little of that money went to "shovel-ready"projects. he was going to create programs to save his friends in government and pursue government programs he was in favor of. the right course for america is not to say the private sector cannot succeed.

but to say we need to give small businesses, big business to grow. what i do not want to do is add more taxes on the american people or borrow more money that the next generation has to pay for in order to say we are going to stimulate the economy. this is time to say we are going away from a stimulus. we instead are going to fundamentally improve our economy to get the private sector working. how does that happen? what does that happen the way we would like to write no? let's describe that. everything the president has done related to the economy, almost everything, has had the opposite effect from what he wanted. he has put in place the most nti-jobs, anti-growth agenda i have seen in my life since jimmy carter. if you want to have americans go back to work, you need to say, how art we going to encourage entrepreneurs. you heard the head of coca-cola.

he said it was a more attractive business environment in china than in america. when that is the case, your coin to see businesses, small and large, going elsewhere instead of investing here. i met a chief executive officer. he was with a senior member of the obama administration. i will not mention who it was. the fellow said, i have looked at your balance sheet, and you have a lot of cash. why are you not investing in america? i said, that is a question you should ask yourself. because we are not investing in america because what you have done here and made it less attractive. what we have to do to get people to invest in america, to do what bmw did, coming to south carolina? one, we have to make sure that our tax rates for employers are competitive with those of other nations. two, we have to make sure that regulators see their job as

encouraging the private sector. three, we have to have trade policies that open markets for our goods and make sure if they are cheaters like china we say no to their cheating. [applause] i got a long list. four, we have a lot of energy in this country. natural gas. i do not know if you understand what has happened, but again, these brilliant innovators found a way not just to drill or vertically into the earth. now they can also drill horizontal. they tap into pockets of oil and gas. and push fluid in there. we have 100 years of natural gas. this administration holding off. we want to develop our own energy resources. i was with the head of a large enterprise that just announced they are building a $20 billion

factory in saudi arabia. they said they wanted to build and pennsylvania, but they could not count on our regulators to make sure they could get a gas out in pennsylvania. we have the keystone pipeline being spoken of right now. canada wants to sell as energy. this administration is saying now. . we need an administration that recognizes that the key to job growth is not putting people to work in government, but to let the private sector stand up and grow. yes, sir. yes? hi. >> hello. excuse me. i am little nervous. >> me, too. that's ok. >> i've followed your interview last night on fox. you talk a lot about compromise. i am curious with the two parties now so diametrically opposed, in what they see as

the job of the federal government, democrats being large government -- republicans of being small government -- how do you compromise while standing firm on the principle of smaller government? >> a good question. let me tell you, i would not say i would never use the word compromise. but i tried -- because that means different things to different people. i look for republicans and democrats to see if they can find common ground, which is not to say i expect democrats to give up their principles or us to give up our principles. i am certainly not to give up my. i would like for them to give up theirs, but they are not likely to. i look to see if there is some place we can agree. because the democrats and independents and republicans love america, you can find a and from time to time places where you can agree on that.

right now, i think there is agreement in this country that if we stay on the course barack obama has put us on, that sometime within the next five years or so, we will hit the wall greece has hit. the differences, in greece they can get bailed out. they are a small country. the region around them will be doing pretty well and they get pulled out. if america gets in trouble, no one can pull us out. the consequence would be extraordinary. and so, that tends to concentrate the thinking to say, were confined, and ground? i just saw something which i thought was extraordinary -- yesterday or the day before -- which is that we want to make sure that medicare is there not just for current retirees but for future retirees, for people in their 20s, 30's and 40's. we want to make sure that the trillions of dollars of promises

that are not yet funded will not scare away people from investing in america. and so a democrat named senator widen and a republican named pay ul ryan said, how about this? in the future, we will say that people with a high income will not do is pick up payments as people of low income. the republican agreed, the democrats agree. they found some common ground. they also said, we want people to be able to choose traditional medicare. that made the democrat happy. or choose private plans. that made the republican happy. so they came together. if you have people who are willing to put the country first and put aside the politics and look for common ground, they can. i had what was considered the misfortune to be elected in a state that has a few democrats. [laughter]

my legislature was 85% democrat. that taught me that to get anything done i had to listen to my democratic friends and see what was important to them. they listened to me. and we were able to do some things together. when i was in office, we faced a financial crisis. the chief financial officer of the state said we are going to come to a point where we cannot pay our bills. money is going up faster than it is coming in. i went to my legislative praetorship and said, i would like you to give me the authority to cut any part of the budget i want as much as needed. now for them to agree to something like that they have to have some trust in me. and so, they agreed to do that. and i then went in and cut out of hundreds of millions of dollars so we could balance our budget. that happens when people care about the job they are elected to do more than they care about getting reelected. thank you. [applause]

here you go. here goes the microphone. >> hi. i have something to ask of you. in solidarity with the priority that is in every state that you go to, i would ask -- are run a charity, but it does not matter what country -- i am sorry, what state you go to, if every person in here brought a canned goods, they would have stoppecked the pantries. i have people waiting in line every single day. people who have never asked for help before, it is difficult for them to come in and ask for food that first time. they do not want to apply for food stamps. they do not want ask, and they are hungry. they have not paid their workers because they cannot. i would really ask, will any of the kennedys, anywhere, if people would bring in a canned

goods for any state they are in, the pantries are in desperate need. thank you. >> thank you. i hope we recognize -- i appreciate that thought. i hope we recognize that when we hear a number like 10.5% unemployment, we do not think of that as a number. when we hear that 26 million people are out of work. or have stopped looking for work. i can of art -- or can only get part-time jobs. they need full-time work. we recognize these are real people. you were saying a moment ago, this means that what is happening right now in the country means that young couples that want to start a family cannot afford to. kids that went to college -- what to go to college cannot afford to. that someone in their 50's, putting aside funds for retirement, cannot find a job. marriages falter. and you say people are hungry.

>> some are living in a car. >> this is a time when we need to make sure the safety net is repaired. and those of us that have need to be generous to those that do not. i was just as a food pantry in new hampshire. and people lined up to get turkeys for thanksgiving. fortunately, folks had gone to the grocery store and brought them to the pantry. and folks were able to have those things out. this is the time for us to care for our fellow men and women. appreciate the work you are doing in that regard. thank you. yes, sir? right there and a blue vest. hello, sir. >> good morning. >> it's afternoon, i think. i am nervous. my question has to do with global warming. not actually global warming, but global warming andalysis. the hysteria we are now in with

regard to global warming has to do with the modeling of the planet by computers. it has nothing to do with -- our energy policy is based in this country upon as global warming analysis, which has come down to energy based upon sun and wind, which turned out to be trivial energy. when we need it natural gas and oil and coal and all the things that really produce energy. my question to you, sir, is what would be your policy with regard to this fraud that has been going on for decades? thank you. >> well, first of all, i am not planning on cutting -- in with nancy pelosi. [applause]

number two. speaker newt gingrich tells us that is the biggest mistake of his life. there are three things i believe with regards to global warming. i am not a scientist. i have not build a model of how the environment of the earth works. what do i think? i think the earth is getting warmer. i may be wrong. he says i am. ok. it has happened before. i think we contribute to that. number three, i do not know how much we contribute to that. so my energy policy -- does not say, let's spend trillions and trillions of dollars to stop the emission of greenhouse gases. instead, let's develop the energy resources we have an america. one of the nice things about natural gas is that it tends not to emit as much greenhouse gas. let's use clean coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear. there is a nuclear man up there.

and those things have the benefit of getting america independent of people who we buy energy from who do not like us very much. also has a byproduct of emitting less greenhouse gas. my energy policy says -- do not support cap and trade. in my region of the country, the northeast, the governors put together our regional greenhouse gas initiative that would limit and cap and trade gases. i refused to sign that, along with the governor of rhode island. the right thing for america is to get our own energy, get ourselves independent from the oil cartel's and make sure we do what is right for america. thank you. yes? >> appreciate you being here today. i am the progress of here in myrtle beach. i wanted you to elaborate a little bit on illegal immigrants that are here, how you would get

rid of them or how you would control that. i'm sorry. i'm so cold. but my major concern is with -- it is discouraging to see the elderly go without food. a lot of these folks who are single mothers. they have cell phones for free. they can get their groceries for free. and they do not contribute anything for our system. i do apologize for what i said to get rid of them. that is not -- i want them to be here legally. i want them to come the way we can. i think we need to address how we will deal with the illegal immigrants. thank you. >> thank you. i'm glad -- as we all do in the world of politics, now and then we say words that are not exactly what we mean. then we have to correct them. you corrected on the spot.

i think we can all agree that in legal immigration is a very good thing. it has been for america and it will be in the future. i like legal immigration. it is a good thing. [applause] to make sure the system works, we have to make sure we stop illegal immigration so that our legal system continues to work effectively. how'd you do that? how do deal with those that are here illegally? one, i would build a fence. i would have an of border patrol agents. number 3, for those that come here legally, i would give them a card, like a credit card with by a metric information, picture, and a number and i would say to employers, if you want to hire someone without a valid social security number, you have to ask for that card. if they have it, you put in a number, it will tell you whether that person is here legally. with the card is a valid or been counterfeited. and

an employer, that is fine. if you do not do that, you are going to get sanctioned. we are going to crack down on employers that hire people who are not here legally. i give them a time to register, a temporary time to get their affairs on order. some have kids in school. give them some time. we do not want those who come here illegally to be able to stay in this country. they have to go home and get back in line with everybody else. [applause] when they get up to the front of the line, we can welcome them back as an illegal immigrant. but i do not think those that have come here illegally should be given a special pathway or an advantage relative to those who are standing in line, coming to this country legally. thank you. yes, sir?

this better be an easy question with that teacher on. >> you mentioned natural gas a couple of times. this is regarding h.r. 1837. you'll probably like that, right? that would give incentives to manufacturers to build natural- gas cars, and two suppliers to build infrastructure for natural gas to supply cars. i am in favor of it. we are important about a billion dollars worth of oil every day now in this country, and payments are way out of work because of that. i think that would be a good bill to pass. >> i appreciate your thoughts. i am not familiar with that piece of legislation. i will look at that. in some cases, we provide encouragement to the market to do things they would not do

otherwise. oil companies want to keep selling oil. we would like them to considerable natural gas, which we have in abundance in this country, but there is nothing wrong with oil. we have and not of -- a lot of new oil that has been discovered. i want us to take action to get ourselves off a dependence on foreign oil. that means we have to participate in getting our natural gas stock. natural-gas is, relative to oil or gasoline, on a per btu basis, very cheap. it is very inexpensive. i want to get it out to the marketplace, where people can use it for transportation, heating, cooling, for feedstock, for our chemical industry. let's use the resources in our country. there are a lot of hands up, and i know you have to go. i will take one more. this young lady looks

enthusiastic. >> i know we talk about jobs, and that is important. we need to remember education is an important step to those jobs. what are your plans if president to improve education in america to make us competitive? >> i will tell you a story in this regard. i believe the responsibility for education starts right there, the governor. the governor and the states are the place for education. [applause] so i am really reluctant for the president of the united states to step in and say, "i think your curriculum should be like this puzzle -- like this." i am hesitant to dictate to states what they do in education. there is now an effort by secretary duncan to put together a national curriculum. i am not enthusiastic about that idea. in my state, we put together a

curriculum back in 1993, before i came along. we put together a curriculum, and i like what we came up with. other states, if they like it, can borrow from it. if they don't, they can create their own or let each district to do their thing. i do not want to impose a single curriculum. there may be things in there i do not like. i think it is best to keep at the local level. what can the government do? one thing it can do is stand up to the big federal teachers' unions. [applause] and i know some of my friends are concerned about president george w. bush putting in place this program of testing, having states test their kids. i supported that. the reason i did is i knew the teachers' union, the big federal teachers' unions, with all their money, did not want kids to be tested.

that would point out which schools were failing and which were succeeding. the president said, "of what each state to test its own kids." he did not tell them what level they had to reach to pass. he said, "come up with your own plan, but you all test." that way, we know what school succeed or fail. i will look for places to stand up to the teachers' union and make sure that schools are run by the parents and the localities, not the teachers' union. [applause] i just want to say this. we have talked about some many things that are challenges and problems. we 015 trillion dollars in debt, 62 trillion dollars in promises that have not been funded yet. people are hungry. they are out of work. young people have schools that are far behind schools around the world in terms of quality and output. we have a world that has become

more dangerous. israel is in a more fragile position than i have seen during my adult lifetime. we have the nation of pakistan, a fragile nation, yet it has over 100 nuclear weapons. we have north korea with nuclear capacity, trying to sell the capacity to places around the world. the list goes on and on, the challenges. but i am optimistic. i feel like about america. we have people with empires in their purpose. we have innovators, pioneers, inventors, and freedom in this country. i recognize something else. we are patriotic. we love the country. [applause] we respect the principles america was founded upon. we actually thrilled to something jfk said.

even republicans did. "ask not what the country will do for you, but what you will do for the country puzzle that is what we want. fdr, during the second world war, asked us to put our hand over our hard during the playing of the national anthem. he began that tradition, in honor of the blood shed by our sons and daughters in four of places. we are patriotic. i believe that if we have leaders who will draw on the patriotism of the american people, who will tell the truth and live with integrity, and who know how to lead, who understand the economy and what makes it work, that america can overcome any challenge. i intend to be one of those leaders, with >> live remarks from democratic leaders on the payroll tax debate going on in the house. live coverage started just a

moment ago. >> beers to esters voting on this bill. today in the next 10 minutes on the next hour and a course of the day. thank you, mr. hoyer. since i'm a skinny love it. a thrill is right within the instant of reaching out to a colleague at nearly 170 cosponsors to continue his leadership, mr. levin. so this is the standard bill, that there is no procedural process, whatever it is, obstacle of passing the bill. again, the speaker said it's finished. it's not finished. we have worked to do. while we're on the subject of work to do, i'm qualifying speakers to make sure in regardless of how this goes on attack pattern i hope the senate accomplish it as soon as possible in the next hours or days. regardless of how this goes, we should be here in the first week of january -- second week of january. why would the american people are out of work are we not

working the first half of january. with that in yield to the distinguished democratic witness. >> ii think the leader for yielding. another little, sh yielding. another little, short-term to. heard that phrase? speaker boehner june of this year, speaking about a one-year extension in the payroll tax. he called it then another little short-term gimmick. so the proposition that 60 days is too short is not new to speaker boehner. he thought one year was too short and that it was a gimmick. we have 11 days. 11 days before 160 million americans see their taxes go up.

2.3 million people seeking jobs kid rock from unemployment and 48 million on medicare had their access to.it is put at risk if we don't act. the senate acted. we could pass the senate bill this afternoon, send it to the president and provide search and see. the republicans talk a lot about certainty. if any american having watched the senate operates for the last 12 months very freeing lee has certainty as to what they'll do in the next 10 days or 15 days, god bless them. they haven't been watching very closely. the fact is we can give certainty to those 160 million americans passing the senate bill. we can give those 38 million seniors passing this bill. we can give certainty to the unemployed but they won't be out on the street. we've heard from the senate,

democrats. there's a wide agreement that the house must pass the senate short-term compromise so time does it run out on these 160 million or 48 million or 2.3 million. the house republicans have refused to even bring the senate to bipartisan compromise to the floor and that is shameful. now let me say something to you because there's a lot of talk about not agreeing with the senate and how the constitutional framers which didn't set up a conference at all. this is the walkaway caucus. the walkaway leadership that are walking away from 160 million americans. walking away from 40 million seniors. walking away from the unemployed on december 3rd, they walked away from the bowl simpson commission to solve our fiscal

problems. on march 15 at this year, 54 republicans walked away from a continuing resolution. it wasn't the democrats continuing resolution. 54 republicans walked out on their leadership on march 15. 59 republicans walked away again on their leadership. on june 23rd, mr. cantor walked away from the talks in which mr. dan holland participated so ably. on july 27, speaker boehner walked away from the deal at the president appeared on august 1st, 66 republicans walked away from it builds of ensuring ensure a bills. a bill on the floor by its republican leadership. on november 17, republicans walked away from the conference report by the agriculture conference and transportation

committee. why is that important? that was their bill, not our bill. not even a senate bill. walking away is a pattern for them as you can see. they walked away from their leadership once again on november 7th team. november 21st ewa away from the committee and joint deficit reduction. in just a few days ago, december 16, 86, republicans walked away from it on the base bill offered by the republican leadership. speaker boehner was in constant communication with mitch mcconnell. does anyone in the american public believe watching this past year and the republicans in the house were against when he consistently has not done so, consistently not done so.

i'm consistently, speaker boehner has got to agree to this. is there any doubt the speaker boehner agreed to this deal? and then what happened to a? the same thing that happened on each one of these occasions. his caucus walked away and put at risk those 160 million americans who don't want to see their taxes go up, who could address the 48 million seniors who want to make sure their docs are going to see it, who put at risk the 2.3 million who will lose their unemployment. i played with a mr. boehner, the speaker of the house. take this bill up that we have just introduced and passed the. and yes, then let us talk about extending this for one year. but give us time. remove anxiety from those people whom i've talked. make sure that they don't lose the benefits we want them to have.

and in doing so, help bring our economy down when we want to build it appeared walking away i tell my republican friends in the house of representatives, is not the answer. and i'll yield to the speaker. >> i want to say walking away the consequence is that we in the house on the democratic side avoided. the 66 who voted against the legislation that would prevent a default. that so many of those that even though it was a great though and their people didn't vote for it, the democrats did so the credit of the united states of america would be appellate. i imagine 66 vote of against republican bill. we didn't write the bill, but the choices that we heard have made it imperative that we do

well to strive for the american people. i say it's not the bill that i wanted. i'll take just a few questions because we simply have to go back to the floor. >> ms. pelosi, are you not been so nice to blame for this stalemate? >> no, it's not a question of blame for stalemate. it's a question that there's a bill that has a past senate that the republicans have put forth a past designed to fail. the bill the republicans passed in the house was not even brought up in the senate. republicans in the senate objected to anything being brought up because they said they knew it would fail in the bill that is in the house was not brought up by the house republicans because the senate bills they knew wouldn't pass. she's not lucy. i'm not sure the koran.

we are not falling for that stunt again. senator mitch mcconnell fell for it, but we are not falling for it. this is not about getting a bill passed. this is not getting the bill passed. this stalemate is that there is a bill that can pass, that can be signed this very day. there's plenty of time to talk about the one-year proposal. they work for it -- the website in june they were for it is a one-year bill at that time. it was only that the president made this bill too hot for them to handle. but this is clearly -- and make no mistake the fact is a clear one. if we do not have a payroll tax cut, it is because the republicans in the house of representatives have chose to paint themselves in a different place than republicans in the country and republicans in the united states senate. they are clearly isolating themselves and i will not fall

charlie brown to their lucy. they have pulled this every single time. we are not going to let them mislead the american people. >> madam leader. >> can any of when chime in on these things? .. we understand in the democratic process you have to make compromises. some you don't like them, but

for the country and for the sake of those 160 million people and for the sake of those 40 million people, seniors and for the sake of those unemployed, 2.3 million we are making compromise. not because we agree with a particular position but that is the way the legislative process works. unfortunately the walkaway caucus has not learned that lesson. >> leader cantor and the board today said he thought both sides were very close in terms of reaching an agreement on a one-year deal. does that sound correct to any of you? >> no, i don't think that is correct at all. we will come back the first week in january and get to work on this one-year deal but let us right now pass the senate bill so we remove all doubt in the public's mind. there is an illusion going on here that the republicans won support a payroll tax cut.

which the record shows they have not. two, that bipartisanship in working together is a goal that they would like to achieve. not so. they are not honoring what the senate would in an overwhelmingly bipartisan way, so whatever they say is irrelevant to what they do. and what they're doing is not giving a payroll tax cut to 160 million americans. >> if i could just add quickly, it's a delusion. they cut 40 weeks out of unemployment insurance. 3.3 million people would lose benefits under the bill that they passed in for him to talk about 90% is totally self-serving. they need to step up to the plate today, today, and pass a bill that the vast majority of republicans in the senate voted for including every single member of the republican leadership. every single member.

>> i think all of you should ask -- i don't know if you did. why not bring this bill up for a vote? it would pass, and they did not want those who voted no to be on the record. it's as simple as that. so if you have been asked that question, please ask it, why not bring this up for approval? >> and we have gone all the way down the path of compromise. there is one area where we did not have -- the keystone pipeline but whether you are for it or not is this not the point. there are other provisions in this bill that don't belong that have nothing to do with the subject at hand but in addition to that, we don't believe to payroll tax cuts to 160 million americans and they don't believe in unemployment and if it's to those who need them, and

millions of people will be cut out under their plan. for many of those people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own they will now lose their benefits because of the republicans in the house of representatives and some of them have no other means of income. this is bad for those families. it's also bad for our economy and job creation. the public has to be concerned and wondering why on earth are we not getting a payroll tax cut when everybody says they are for it? because those of us who say we are for it on the democratic side are for it. many on the republican side are for it. they have voted that way but the republican leadership in the house is not and this is just delaying and stalling tactics and as i said, we are not falling for that football trick again. >> well the democrats be leaving after this boat series?

>> we will be here as long as it takes. >> the senate does not reconvene is there another way to avoid the cuts? is there another way to avoid it? >> is there an option? [inaudible conversations] >> house democratic leaders -- the house has just begun a series of posts that will include foes on the house and senate positions on tax cuts. earlier today the house defeated the senate bill on the tax cut to 292193 and house conferees have been named to conference with the senate on a compromised bill. senate majority leader harry reid reacting to all this in a statement says that it is unconscionable for speaker boehner to block a bipartisan compromise that would protect middle-class families from a 1000-dollar tax hike and remains

opposed to calling congress back to -- called him present a bomb to call the senate back into session to go to conference. speaker boehner announced a republican negotiators to serve on the conference committee charged with resolving differences between the house and senate version. the house voted 229-193 to disprove the senate passed tax bill. >> the president, and the president and leaders of both houses of congress have called for a year-long extension of a payroll tax cut. the houses passed a bill that would do just that. it would extend and reform unemployment insurance, protect social security and create jobs. we are proud of the bill that we

passed. the house passed with bipartisan support. now we also understand the senate passed a different bill. we opposed that bill because of the two-month extension that will create more uncertainty for job creators in our country when millions of americans are out of work. the payroll process says the senate bill is unworkable and so complex that many americans may not even get the tax credit. so today we have voted to go to a formal conference to resolve the differences between the two bills. this is a system that our founders gave us. it's as old as our nation and as clear as the constitution. our house gop negotiators are here and ready to work with their counterparts i6n the sene to resolve the differences as quickly as possible. are negotiators are kevin brady, david camp, renée l. wears, dano

hayworth, tom price, tom reed, now it is up to the president to he said that he won't leave town for the holidays until this bill is done. next step is clear. i think president obama needs to call on senate democrats to go back into session, moved to go to conference and to sit down and resolve this bill as quickly letter to the president today, asking him to do just this. we have done our work for the american people and now it's up to the president, democrats in the senate, to do their job as well. with that i will take questions. [inaudible] >> we have done our job. all we need now is to resolve our differences. two-month extension is nothing

more than kicking the can down the road. the president has asked us to do this for a full year. we did it for a full year. we offset the cost was there is no reason we can do this. you remember just several weeks ago, the house had passed a dod authorization bill. the senate passed bears. in a period of less than a week they were able to resolve their there is no reason why we can't >> if senator reid word to say sit down and let's solve this. would you not forge ahead with the conference committee for >> there a lot of ways to resolve it. we are doing this under what we recall regular order. the system that our founders between the two houses.

>> are members going to go home for the holidays? >> are negotiators are here, ready and able to work. members of the leadership will be here, ready and able to work. we will be available to do what needs to be done but the issue now is what will they president engaged with the senate democrats to bring them to the table so we can resolve this and resident what he us to give them, a one-year extension of these just said, you personally said, i need john boehner to help out. out. [applause] >> mr. speaker, i had a question.bwjw [laughter] he is asking you to help out and

he has asked that he will take up the senate bill. any chance of that happening? >> the senate bill, we have party taken up the senate will. we rejected the senate bill and we move to moved to go to conference. under the rules of the congress, that means the papers that were in our possession are on their way back to the united states senate. >> the senate passed a two-month bill. is the timing come as the length cut. we are going to insist on doing this for weeks and haven't been able to come to an agreement. [inaudible]

senate leaders, both senator reid and senator mcconnell, that there would be no negotiations with the house until such time as the senate passed a bill. i meant what i said. and when they were getting ready to pass this, somebody passed onto me what they thought it would look like, i made it clear to them at that point that i was uncomfortable with where they were going. i expressed my displeasure and once again, taking the convenient route and not doing the peoples. people's. thanks everybody.

[inaudible conversations] >> so i say if you can't do with a nuclear iran and i can't, i think all options are on the table. >> if we took that oath of office seriously in washington we would get rid of 80% of the government. cb what your question was who is the proven constitutional conservative in this race? that would be me. >> read the latest comments from candidates and political reporters and link to c-span's media partners on their earlier primary caucus states at

c-span.org/campaign 2012. >> with the iowa caucuses and new hampshire primary next month, c-span series the contender's looks back at the 14 men who ran for president and lost but had a long-lasting impact on american politics. here is our lineup for this week. >> several british tabloid newspapers have been a key used of hacking into the phones of celebrities and members of the royal family. earlier this year the prime minister david cameron appointed a committee to investigate the phone-hacking. today, cnn talk-show host piers

morgan testified. he is a former editor of two newspapers accused of phone-hacking. tonight at 8:00 p.m. here on c-span2, you can see tears morgan' testimony from earlier today. stay republican presidential candidate, rick perry, launched a bus tour across iowa last week. on sunday he stopped into the town of decorah for a town hall meeting. this is one hour.

[inaudible conversations] >> the last time i saw a crowd like this we had 80 people running for town supervisor. at least you are not all running for something. it is a great pleasure to introduce mike engelhard. some of you know me. i am the chair, i chair the republican party in this county. took great pleasure to introduce a strong conservative that comes from a small farming community called cane creek. he grew up on a cotton farm, took part in 4-h and eventually earned the rank of eagle scout. he served as a pilot in the united states air force said to serve the state of texas as governor for more than a decade. his home state has created more than 1 million jobs during his tenure as governor, even as america lost jobs. please welcome america's jobs

governor and a candidate for their public in nomination for president, rick perry. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. how are you, sir? good to see you. thanks for coming out tonight, i'll let you on a sunday evening while the broncos and the patriots are playing. i will be brief. so you can catch the fourth quarter but it is an honored to be here with you. dr. mike i want to take a few minutes and share with you a little bit about who i am and where i am from. i know that sometimes in one minute opportunities, in debates, you don't get to really find out about someone and that is the reason that, rather than

taking off back to warmer climates after the debate in sioux city, that we made the decision we wanted to spend a good time driving across iowa, talking to people, just kind of sharing with them our hearts and listening to them and we will open it up for some questions after we get through here. i know mike shared with you that i grew up on a small farm. we were cotton farmers. you guys really know how to grow things up here in iowa, corn and soybeans and we have seen a lot of unocal farmland all laid-back for the winter. but the communities are mind me a lot of where i grew up. i grew up about 60 miles from a place that had a post office and a very rural community. there was a little school out on market road that had 110, 120 kids, grades one through 12 in

the methodist church at a baptist church, your choice. if you wanted to go to the lutheran church you had to go over to eric style. i dealt this is -- has got a pretty good lutheran community here in decorah, so my point is that it's a very rural, very -- the house i grew up and didn't have running water until about 1955 and 56, in that time. but there are people that would say as they watched where and how i grew up, that our family was poor. we weren't. we had a very -- i didn't want for anything. i had a shetland puppy and a dog. and all the things that you would need. my dad worked a couple of jobs and my mom was a bookkeeper at a cotton gin.

but frankly we were rich and the things that i consider to be important in life, family and faith, and when i wasn't going to school in pain creek, i was involved in 4-h raising calves and showing club calves are going to boy scouts and working towards my eagle scout. i wanted to be a veterinarian. that was my lifestream and i went off in 1968 to texas a&m university. that is where god introduced me to organic chemistry. [laughter] i had a little y in my life in the vietnam war was going on so i volunteered to fly in the united states air force. actually i've never left the state of texas but just a few times in my life, until the early 70s. one of those was as a boy scout to the national jamboree.

i went to washington d.c., philadelphia to see the liberty bell and liberty hall and freedom hall. the world's fair was going on in 1964, in new york, so other than that i really never left the state of texas until i graduated from undergraduate pilot training in my duty station was a c-130 base. i lived all over the world. europe and south america and central america. i lived in saudi arabia in the 1970s and the mid-1970s we saw the country making a transition to iran. net period of time obviously before 79. but i started seeing how different countries and their governments and the structure of their governments, the first time i really started paying attention and thinking about

this country we live in. and the reason i share that story with you is because as a young man, it became very obvious to me what a great country we lived in. and that the freedoms and the liberties that we have sometimes we take for granted. and our founding fathers put together this country because they were really concerned about this big government, this powerful faraway centralized government and they were willing to risk their treasure and their good names, their reputations and in some cases their lives to create a country where they could live free, free from overtaxation, and they develop

that -- developed that's the declaration of independence and they wrote their the constitution and the bill of rights to protect themselves from what they saw as the intrusion of this government, in this case, great britain and king george, and for 200 plus years now, we have been the greatest country on the face of the earth. we have freed more people and we have done more things. we are not perfect. we are never going to be perfect, but from the standpoint of the rest of the world, people look to us historically and said, america, there is something really special about its people. i would suggest it's because we have been free, and for some years now, we have seen washington d.c. growing bigger and bigger and having more influence back in the states.

when our founding fathers wrote the constitution they were pretty clear that they wanted the federal government to do a few things. and do those few things really well like stay in the military, secure our borders. that would be a really good thing if they would secure our borders. i would like the government to do some things they're supposed to be doing and get out of some things that they aren't doing. our founding fathers had a vision about what they wanted to see put in place. and when they got down to that the live rights, and they had these big long discussions, to them years to get all of this worked out. the 10th amendment talked about the power is not delegated to the united states. by the constitution, we are prohibited to it by the state's, reserved for the states respectively or to the people. that is so simple. its elegant. it talks about the federal

government is supposed to do a few things and they are enumerated in the constitution. in the states would be the decider on whether or not they wanted to be engaged in these other activities. so i make the suggestion that what has occurred over the course of particularly the last 100 years, as we have seen more and more power consolidated in washington d.c., and the states having to fend off the federal government more and more. i say that with some amount of experience being the governor of the second most popular state in the nation. the 13th largest economy in the world if it were a stand-alone entity for the last 11 years. the reason i give you all of that background is to take you to today and i think america and our country is really in trouble. and i can diagram part of that

trouble and a major part of that trouble on a map. it is a straight line between washington d.c. and wall street. the corrupt, and i will suggest even fraudulent activities, that have gone on between washington and wall street has put america's future in jeopardy. $15 trillion worth of national debt is facing this country. 13 plus million people are out of work. one in eight americans are on food stamps. we are at a juncture where we have to make a decision about what we are going to do as a country, and i will suggest from my perspective, that we have to have an outsider come in to washington d.c. as the next president of the united states. ..

the kindly only one that's an actual outsider to us about washington for a decade now from back in my home state. whether it's trying to keep the epa out of our business from the standpoint of the regulation of our environmental laws are wet. his education washington wants to come in and tell us how to educate our children. i don't even know why we have a

department of education. i'll be honest with you at the federal level. it should be either lans and your governor and your legislature in your school board making decisions about your future's. this can last part of that for purposes of administration and their hatred winners and losers. as a matter of fact, even the state are pure ms. local school boards are given, from my death, enough opportunity to make decisions on our children are educated. it goes on about whether it's the energy department or department of commerce. but our government has grown so big and it's so cumbersome and it is so removed from our old. i've laid out three policies that lay out the economy.

the economy is the biggest issue than most people in here if we were to have a show of hands, my instincts are that where america finds itself economically is one of the most important if not the number one concern that you have geared maybe not necessarily for yourself, but for your children, for you, young man, when the social security program that is in place today if we do not change it will not be there when you get ready to retire. that's a fact. we need to stand up, addressed a. those of us either approaching the age is being eligible for social security or some of you in here on social security. it's going to be there for you. don't let anybody try to use a fear attack that can tell you that trying to fix the system for this young man's generation somehow or another is going to kill it for you and for me. it's not.

but we do need to have that open and honest discussion about how we do we transfer the system and make sure medicaid is going to be here to give the health care to the poor in our states. i suggest you block grant it back to the states. again, i trust terry branstad and his legislature to run medicaid better than washington d.c. one side doesn't fit all. our states are different. a lot of the flexibility to do that. this issue is getting america back to work and how are we going to do that? the first plan that i laid out is on the energy side. and i'm kind of in all of the above energy. i mean, i believe whether you are in the alternative energy side or whether you are more traditional oil and gas or whether you're in the solar or

when, nuclear energy, i happen to believe we use nuclear energy safely. we got the reprocess systems safely. i mean, if france can get 80% of their energy from nuclear energy and they deal with the process and and the ways that is less over, surely america can. i mean, i'm not going to give that up to the french that easy and say only they can do that. we can. we need to be smart about it twice about it? absolutely. taking any of those legitimate energy sources off of the table is not good policy. but i don't think washington d.c. needs to be picking winners and losers. i would remove all of those tax credits. all of them. they said not at the same time. whether you're ethanol business

or whether you are in the oil and gas business, face those out. at the same time to treat everyone the same. wind, solar, whatever it may be in the federal government doesn't need to be in the business of picking winners and losers in the energy industry. now if this stateside to have -- we have in the senate program in our state alternative energy and the wind industry came in and used that incentive program. i have no problems they face competing against each other. actually, i think that is what our founding fathers meant for us to do, was to have those types of competition between the states. and if you want to live in a state that has higher taxes and a heavy regulatory burden and a crashing that, you can move to california. for if you want to live in a state that has a more sensible

taxation and regulation and what have you, that is the beauty of the way our founding fathers saw this country is that we aren't all alike. obviously there are standards of living that we expect that our federal government will be engaged in and i support that, but they have become so overpowering but the regulations and their taxation. and that is the reason that when i talk about taxes, i believe if we go to a flat tax in this country, 20% flat tax, have a deduction for your mortgage interest. have a deduction for charitable and your local taxes, have a deduction for your social security benefits. do away with the capital gains tax. do away with the dividend tax and then take 20% of that, put

it on a postcard and mail it in. i think we spent some $400 billion a year thereabouts in preparation of taxes today. lawyers then -- tens of thousands of pages that irs. so the planet, having a simple tax system, cutting the spending. i understand how to cut spending. i am the only governor since world war ii and taxpayers that is cut general revenue spending. i've done it three times. i did it in 03 when our economy turned down. we cut total spending in texas this last session of legislature. and you have choices. i mean, you can look at people's backgrounds. i mean, to judge people and find out what they are going to do a look at their back room, look at their record. it is one of the reasons why talk about how i respect the men

and women on the stage with, but we got congressional insiders. we got wall street structurally infighter and mitt. mitt may not have a wall street address,. and new to former speaker of house. i talk about who is going to make the hard decisions about cutting the budget? has a record of doing not? when it was the governor of massachusetts, he could have cut the budget as we did in texas history or governors at the same time. this is the note three -- 0203 period of time. he looked for ways to reduce the corporate tax rate. they raised $400 million through those corporate taxes, to raise taxes about 20%.

at the same time, we cut -- really hard decisions, got criticized by a lot of folks. goes with the tory tory. the cut $10 billion balanced our budget without raising taxes. one that was a speaker, we spent our spending and budget went up every year. even "forbes" magazine called newt out on this inside look, you guys took money out of the social security trust funds to help out once the budget. you wonder, you know, people talk about the social security system is going to go bust and we've been told all these years there's a social security trust fund? now, there's not. there is a trust fund. it just doesn't have anything in it. the congress has used it and that's the reason we have to transform it. transform a program to where young people that are easier just going into the workforce or in the workforce now that it won't be there for them. and we know that.

we've got to have an outsider. and that is why i'm here to ask you to allow me to speak at outsider. i understand how to cut those budgets. i understand that the worst thing you can do during a time of turndown in a recession or a depression is to raise taxes on job creators. we need to cut our taxes. the regulatory climate is strangling job creators. i don't know how many of you and your small business men and women. how many of you are farmers? i started to ask how many of you are involved in agriculture and then everybody's going to raise their hand because everybody eats. but i've give you a good example of this regulatory burden is a

corrupt drive the john deere shares. as a matter of fact, the labor department -- get this, the labor department has a rule that they are considering that you have to be 18 years old before you can drive a piece of farm equipment. now, that's -- i was driving when i could see underneath -- i mean, dwight david eisenhower had a good quote one time in his talk about foreign policy. he said you know, farming is pretty easy when your plow is a part so and your 1500 miles away from the farm. and sometimes -- not sometimes, a lot of the time that is the consummate washington. we have bureaucrats they don't understand what is going on in the state. whether it's environmental laws, agriculture, whether it is the banking business, and you all

have a small community bank here in the corner? i promise you if you accept it or what the dodd-frank banking regulation is asking nonbank, you will hear an earful. it's not protect them one business men and women. it's not helping one consumer. it is costing money. usaa -- and others veterans in here and you will probably buy your home insurance argues that something insured by usaa defeat them in the military most likely. that company is a big major employer. i know this hometown and home state company that dodd-frank making regulations are going to take almost $500 million in cost

to the company to comply and compliance costs. that is as much money as they stand out in rewards and dividends every year that will wipe that out. and i'm telling you, not going to make one iota difference in what happened between washington d.c. and wall street. i mean, this $700 billion of tart money that they build wall street outlet, they took over companies that were too big to fail. i mean, i almost done through the ceiling when i saw that. that was nothing compared to what we found out about a month ago. $7.7 trillion transferred from our treasury through the fed, said direct you to these wall street firms. $7.7 trillion. that is on your back. that is on these young people's

backs. these things are making money at this. in time. there were $13 billion worth of profit made hundreds of millions of dollars of bonuses going out. and main street paid for a period that is unjust. it is not right and it's got to stop. and we've got to have a president that will walk in there and doesn't have these relationships, that is ready to clean that place up and to throw down, and say, if you send a bill to my dad has got your on it, the high praise veto pen will come out. a sharpie will be to every piece of legislation. it has been earmarked on is going to be vetoed. if you're spending more money than we thought, i'll suggest you two ways to help really clean up washington d.c. and put

americans back in control of our government. one is to pass a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. i will travel this country promoting it, how pass it and go into the states so that washington and future generations of congressmen and women cannot spend more money than what we have coming in. the second one is to make congress a part-time body. you heard that right. a part-time congress. let them cut their salaries substantially. let them spend a substantial more a monotype back home. cut their staff substantially. and we can do that with a constitutional amendment as well. and there are people who say you can't do that. congress is not going to cut their own pay and congress isn't going to. you can do it but they constitutional amendment.

if the people get ready to take this country back they can do it. there may be someone who says you've got to have been in town to do the business of the country. okay, that's good. you know how often the legislature in texas needs? for 130 days every other year. thirteenth largest economy in the world. they meet for 140 days every other year. they come into town, get their work done, make their $600 a month and then they go home and do the real job and live with their citizens. and they list them and they live under the laws of which they pass. [applause] those who sit just i will make a good -- i want to wrap up with

this and open it up for questions and do more listening than talking here for a little bit. i want to share something with you. this was never my purpose to be the president of the united states. i had a great job being the governor of texas. i love it. but our country is in trouble. my father who loved tom as an 18-year-old boy in 1943 and was a goner and east anglia and after 35 missions taught me always that serving my country and serving my state was really important. and when your country needs you, you need to stand up to the challenge and be called and be ready. i thought my service to my country was done when i finish my tour with united states air force.

it's been my business to serve me state for 25 plus years. but our country is in trouble. this isn't about me. this is about you. it's about that young men out there. it is about his future and what our country is going to look like and another four years if we don't get a handle on the spending. i've asked to crowd today, are you better off today than you were $4 trillion ago? i don't think so. and so, having some thoughtful individuals, but in particular, a principled, disciplined fiscal conservative as your president is one of the ways to do that. i offer myself to you in that role. and here's a pat that will make with you.

if you will have my back on the third of january when you go to caucus, i'll have your back in washington d.c. for the next four years. god bless you. can you not. [applause] please. please. yes, sir. >> there is nothing i've ever seen that is too big to fail. if you are too big to fail, you are today. so i don't understand the concept of whether it's a business. i don't think there's a country. i am not for bailouts. i'm not for bailouts and businesses. i'm not for bailouts of european bank. the european -- somebody will

ask about it, but the european situation needs to be dealt with by the european union. they have the same problem we have. they spend money, print money, they allowed themselves to say yes when they should have been saying no to new spending. we are finding ourselves following the same track though. $15 trillion of national debt has to be paid off. yes, sir. [inaudible] >> if anybody walked in here and told you now? now seriously, here is what i am going to use. i bet every person that is locked in here and stepped cora and has asked that question will say, i'm going to be the one.

but i am going to tell you to look at my record. i helped create a climate in the state of texas has created more jobs than any other state in this nation. they did it with some pretty simple principles. to keep attack burden on the job creators that is as wide as they can be in the still delivering services that the people required. you have the regulatory climate that is fair yet predictable. one of the greatest cost that we have in this country today i regulations. a lot of time you never see them because you're invited. there's some companies. i mean, i didn't get around to telling you about john deere and the new engine. the federal government has nation standards on this mission that john deere is building and

upon the nitrogen oxide level. and i will tell you that i understand about environmental protections. i'm going to take just a quick story about texas in a minute and out bp is coming to take over what we do in our state and we've cleaned up our air more than any of their state the nation. but the cost of that track there is going to be $20,000 a copy. you're going to have to pay that. i would suggest to you that the air -- i mean, the difference in the quality of the year that that tractor is going to make is going to be miniscule at best. and the people of iowa know better how to keep their airplane and make sure their water is clear and drinkable than some bureaucrat in washington d.c. and so these regulations, whether they are banking regulations or environmental

regulations, they are strangling this country. i'll pull forward everyone since 2008 and test it for the simple fact. as a kill jobs or create jobs? if it kills jobs we will get rid of them. we have the ability in our state to protect our environment. and as i shared with you, we cleaned up our air more than any other state in the nation. nitrogen oxide levels were down by 50% in the decade we just finished. it is our people. it's our air. i mean, why would we soil that with the sensibilities and the state? in the back, yes sir, you had your hand up. >> yeah, on the oil pipeline from canada down to texas for exporting gas and oil versus exporting through british

columbia, seattle, was your pros and cons of that pipeline? >> i've had some pretty lengthy conversations with both canadians and the governors to represent those states without pipeline will go. not all of them, but some pretty lengthy conversations. i have been a proponent of that pipeline. energy independence should be a goal for this country. that's the reason when i talk about im and all of the above energy person, i don't think we have to shut out any type of legitimate energy source. i'm not forgiving those tax credit, but i am for developing them and removing the regulatory hurdles. and what we got today, that oil is going to go one of two

directions. it is either going to go west and the chinese will buy it, or it will go south for the united states consumption. every barrel of oil that goes out this one barrel of oil that we will not have to import from foreign countries. in some cases, foreign countries are hostile to this country. i mean, i look forward to the day when we can tell mr. hugo chavez, no thank you. we don't need any venezuelan oil. none. but that pipeline -- that pipeline creates a lot of jobs. and i am talking about in the development of the pipeline. i'm talking about the building of the pipeline. and i don't agree that the president should veto this bill. you should let the spy plane occur. and i know he is being pressured by those on the radical environmental side of the aisle.

they want him to not build this pipeline. this paper and has been studied for at least three years. the information i have on it i'm not going to sit here and tell you i'm an absolute expert with the information i have it is not to say this when it's ever been built. and there are already pipelines that go across the oil aquifer in nebraska, which is the abode of contention that they are making. so this pipeline needs to be built. we need to be looking for every source of energy. i'm going to wrap up on writing about energy and then i'm coming to you, sir. the federal land and waters that we have hands off right now for exploration should be opened up. 80% of the proven reserves on our federal lands and waters. i understand we're not going to be exploring. were not going into the everglades or yellowstone, but we got millions of acres of

federal lands with proven reserves on them that need to be opened up so that we can safely produce those resources. and i would use a substantial amount, if not all of that revenue coming into the federal government to help pay down the debt. yes, sir. >> what you expect to be happening to our local gas prices and all shall know national prices on gasoline to the pipeline go through? >> i don't think you'll see a big change that will be my instinct until we get more infrastructure built. here is what i think occurs when that pipeline is built because then there's confidence in people will feel substantially more secure that this supply of oil in this case is going to be coming.

we have found sources that we had no idea we had 10 years ago. you heard the stories decades ago. they've all been found. we may be able to improve secondary tertiary recovery ways to give a little more out. but we found it all. and then we find these huge natural gas deposits that people didn't know were there. frankly we don't know what sunder ioannis. the technology idea when they'd be sitting on huge on huge reserves of oil that people haven't found yet. the rage at those prices down and for an american citizen on fixed income, i think one of the

most important things we can do as a country is to expand our energy exploration and our energy industry, whether it is corn-based and not banal or whether it is with gas or whether it is with solar or wind because once you get that huge amount of energy, you can drive down the cost of that energy, which gasoline, of a true city, to manufacturing costs, the cost of living can go down in this country if we will apply their energy resources we have. we've got 300 years we could energy in this country. yes, ma'am. >> one more question. you are a. ..

we have a very close relationship with them. but that country is also overrun in place is by nature cartels that have operational control of places on the border. we know for a fact and hamas, hezbollah are operating in mexico. less than two months ago, we discovered that an iranian after to work with the data cartels to penetrate through our southern border, to kill a diplomat on united states soil and that plan was found out and was stopped. you have venezuela that has the largest embassy -- iranian

embassy in the world in caracas. you have olivia, which is a marxist state. and the point of all of that is that i think it's time for us to have a new munro doctrine approach to the western hemisphere. the monroe.join in the 1820s or so to protect the western hemisphere from outside influences that were trying to come in. the same thing we did in the 1960s with cuba. ..

>> we've gone through two administrations to ask for help in really securing this border, and still the border with mexico is porous and very dangerous. now, the issue of -- when i'm the president of the united states, i'm not going to be suing states that have their sovereign rights to side. the reason we have the problems

today because the federal government will not and has not secured the border. once you secure the border, and there's truely a secure border, and then applying the laws that we have on the books today, and when i talk about the laws we have on the books today is if people are in this country illegally, and they are stopped, then they need to be deported, and 59 that particular -- and at that particular point in time, people who are here illegally, they'll start finding ways to go back home because they won't put themselves in the position of being deported. my -- all of these conversations that we have about illegal immigration are interesting, but they are actually just intiewjt

-- intellectual discussions because until we have the border secure, we're not going to have an immigration policy in this country. listen, thank you, all for coming out today. god bless you. [applause] i'll make a pact with you as i shared with you. you all have my back on the 3rd of january, and i'll have your back for you in washington, d.c.. god bless you, and thank you. [applause] ♪ ♪ [inaudible conversations] ♪ [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> if you can't live with a nuclear iran, and i can't, then you have to say what to do. i think all options are on the table. >> if we took that oath of office seriously in washington, we'd get rid of 80% of the government. >> the question was who is the proven constitutional

conservative in the race, and that would be me. >> read the latest comments from can dates and political reporters and link to the c-span's partners in caucus states all at c-span.org/campaign2012.

>> earlier today, president obama, along with vice president biden, marked the end of the war in iraq in a special ceremony in maryland. the last u.s. come bat troops -- combat troops crossed the border into kuwait on sunday marking the end of the nearly nine year

war. [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background [background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds] [applause] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds] >> president and vice president at andrew's air force earlier today. visit c-span.org where you can watch the entire chairman with the deputy defense secretary, ashton carter and general forces commander in iraq, general lloyd austin.

>> several british tabloid papers have been accused into hacking into the phones of celebrities, royal family members, and crime. today, cnn talk show host, piers morgan testified. tonight, at 8 p.m. here on c-span2, you can see piers morgan's testimony from earlier today. later in the week, more from the phone hacking inquiry, and wednesday night, hugh grant's testimony, and on third, actress sienna miller, and then paul

mcmilvian. >> this past year, ken burning made a documentary on prohibition for pbs. in october, he spoke at the national press club about the radification, implementation, and event issue repeal of the 18th amendment to the u.s. constitution. this is an hour. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> may i have your attention, please? thank you.

good afternoon, and welcome to the national press club. i'm mark hamrick, broadcast and online journalist with the associated press a president of the national press club. we're the world's leading organization for journalists committed to the profession's future in programming with events such as this and fostering free press worldwide. for more information, visit our website at www.press.org and donate to programs offered to the public through our eric freedhiem organization as well. on behalf of members worldwide, i welcome our speaker and those of you attending the event. we have working journalists who are club members, and i issue this reminder at all event of events, political and not, you'll hear applause in the audience today. armbers of the general public