going to own me anything? that i won't get any special treatment? i thought that was exactly what we set in mcconnell, what we talk about restrictions, we understood you get $3.5 million coming in a very, very special place at the table. this is a fact ugly to reintroduce the soft-money scandal about, caught is not? >> no, your honor. it is absolutely not. but, that with a situation where you're not going to base limits. take your example of the joint fundraising committee. the joint fundraising, which is three pages in the federal code of regulations come as one of 2.17 c. specifically reaffirms the base limits. it specifically reaffirms that does the joint fundraising committee must inform all contributors of those

restrictions. so again as a situation where the money leaves the contributors hand, loses control over it >> the money goes to a single party. indeed i could make this even worse. i can say let's say the speaker of the house where the majority leader of the house solicit this money from particular people. so solicit somebody to ante up his three-point $6 million. that meant justice kennedy said in mcconnell equate both to the recipient of the money and the one who solicits the payment. but the speaker, majority leader can solicit $3.6 million while the party members and you tell me there's no special influence that goes along with that? feedback we know from the city and are not quick pro-co-corruption. that is not the sort of corruption that would sustain this limit, especially in light

of the severe restrictions on speech and association that it imposes as the political parties compete against each other in as the candidates have to compete. >> in buckley, the court sustained aggregate limit. what has changed since buckley? >> your honor, the statute has changed significantly to impose islamic, parties on both the state and federal parties. it is changed to prohibit proliferation of political committees. one of the concerns in buckley with the dairy industry, which contributed to hundreds of pac. that is no longer possible. >> those were all created by the dairy industry or nixon campaign. >> as i read the lower court decision in buckley, that is correct. in addition, you have a thick volume of the code of federal regulations of the federal election commission, which did not exist in time.

>> thank you, counsel. >> thank you, your honor. >> mr. chief justice and may i please the court? aggregate limit combat corruption. let me start by explaining exactly how. aggregate limit combat corruption both by blocking circumvention of individual confirmation limit and equally fundamentally by serving as a bulwark against the campaign finance system dominated by massive individual contributions, which the dangers of quid pro quo corruption would be obvious and inherent in the corrosive appearance of corruption would be overwhelming. the appellants in this case i try to present the case is an issue of whether there were some correcting potential and giving contribution to the 19th candidate after someone astarte contributed the maximum of the 18th. that is not what this case is about. the appellants are not arguing the aggregate limit is drawn in the wrong place.

their argument is there can be no aggregate limit because the base contribution limits do all the work. so what that means is you are taking the lid off the aggregate contribution limit. as justice kagan and her question earlier indicated, that means an individual can contribute every two years up to $3.62 million candidates for a party, national committees. >> that's because they can transfer the funds among themselves into a particular candidate. is the possibility of prohibiting those transfers perhaps the way of protecting against data corruption appearance, while at the same time allowing individuals to contribute to however many house candidates he wants to contribute to? >> i mean, the concerns you have somebody who is very interested, stay in environmental regulation

and very interested in gun control. the current system, the witty anti-aggregation system works if he's got to choose. you go into this express his belief that donating more than nine people there, or is he going to change the gun control issue? >> mr. chief justice, i want to make two different points in response to that question. the first is restricting transfers would have a very on the circumvention problem, wouldn't eliminate, but with a bearing bearing on the problem. there is a more fundamental problem here. a problem analogous to the one that was issued soft-money mcconnell, the very fact delivering a $3.6 million check to whoever it is, speaker of the house, senate majority leader who solicits that check, the fact delivering that check creates the inherent opportunity for quick pro-crow, exactly what

the court identified. apart from where the money goes -- what is the framework for analyzing? i agree with you on the aggregation, but it has this consequence with respect to learning how many candidates an individual can support within the limits that congress says don't present any danger of corruption. so what is the framework for analyzing not? give you your argument with respect to the transfers and the appearance they are. but it does have that other consequent contemptibly recognized as a significant rate. a mimic a specific point in the network into the framework. pacific point as they speed the aggregate limit would have the effect of restricting the ability of a contributor to make the maximum contribution to more than a certain number of candidates. we can't help but acknowledge that mass. that doesn't mean that

individual cannot spend this much is the individual want an independent expenditures to try to advance the interest of those candidates, the causes of those candidates who stand for. ms. mccutcheon can spend as much as his fortune as he wants advocating the election of these candidates. >> that does not evoke any gratitude on the part of the people click i mean, if gratitude is corruption, you know, don't this independent expenditures eco-gratitude? is not the evil of big money, 3.2 million individual can give back to an individual pac. it's not that were stopping people from spending big money on politics. >> the foundation of the court's jurisprudence is a careful line between independent expenditures, which this court has held repeatedly to not

create sufficient rest of quid pro quo corruption and justify the regulation and contributions which do. >> outline a eliminate some of the arguments that have been made here, which arguments against a big money in politics. >> big money can be in politics. the thing is you can't give it to the republican party or the democratic party, but you can start your own pac. i'm not sure that it's a benefit to our club will system. >> we do have limits on contributions to political parties in addition to limits on contributions to candidates. i think that does help establish the point here, which is parties are not hermetically sealed off from candidates. they are all on the same team and we limit the amount that an individual can contribute to political party as well as the amount the individual can

contribute. >> i am looking for an answer. it's not that i have one at all. the rather basic point i think is being made now. as i understand it, it is no doubt the campaign limit take an ordinary person and say you cannot get more than hutchens such an amount. there are pear pie from the internet 200 people in the united states would like to give $117,000 or more for telling them he can't support your beliefs. that is a first amendment negative. but that tends to be justified on the other side of the first amendment because if the average person thinks what he says as he signed his first amendment rights just can't have an impact to public opinion upon his representative. he says what is the point of the first amendment? and that is a first amendment point. so that's basic i think. now once that is so, congress

has leeway. you're saying, and seen all over the place, that is why we don't want those 200 people to send more than 117,120,000 because the average person thinks the election is after the election. all the actions are affected by the pocket book and not the merits of the first amendment argument. and i say the person can do the same thing anyway. just call it independent. he can spend 40 million. he can spend 50 million all that does this mix of the messages because the parties can't control it. that's they think the question being asked. i think that is a very serious question and i'd like to know what flows from that. is it true? so what are we supposed to do? what is your opinion quite >> i have the same question. when present gives in the run-up to the is limited. the other takes out, as

uncoordinated on the loan costs being $500,000. don't you think the second person has more access to the candidate when the candidate is successful on the first? i was at the root of justice scalia's question and justice breyer's. >> let me answer this with an analogy if i could, justice kennedy. the right way to think about it is this. if someone thinks the secretary offense is doing a great job, they can take a night in the "washington post" and spend $500,000 in the secretary of defense has done a great job and it would have would have an undoubted right to do that. no one could think they are -- it's hard to imagine a constant natural justification for prohibiting the speech. if instead the person wants to express -- [inaudible] >> it would be an independent

expression. but instead, somebody wanted to express symbolically their view that the secretary of defense is in a great job at giving the secretary of defense a maserati, nobody would think there was a first amendment plan that could be invoked. >> we're talking about campaign contributions. it's not an illegal for the candidate to take campaign contributions and use it to buy a maserati? >> yes, it is. i think it does, if i may, justice alito, because the point is the rules against gifts, conflict of interest rules exist to advance a content neutral government interest of the highest importance. >> don't talk to me about your argument. the justice court depends opinion is while hypotheticals that are not obviously plausible

and certainly lack any of supporter. you've chosen to use the same hypothetical the district court used about the $3.5 million contribution that could be given by a court neck, which involves opera house candidates in senate candidates in a particular year getting together with all of the parties, national party committees plus all of the state party committees. that's how you get to the $3.5 million. isn't that right? how realistic is that? how realistic is it about the state party committees, for example, are going to get money and all transfer to one candidate. for 49 of them come as a candidate who's not in the wrong state and there's virtually no instances at state party committees contributing to candidates from another state. the other part that seems dubious on its face is all of the candidates for the house and

senate of a particular party or going to get together and transfer money to one candidate. you cited in your brief the best examples i take it of contributions from some candidates to other candidates. they are very small. it's not true? >> yes, but with all due respect, i think the point your honor is making confuses two different ways in which these laws combat the risk of corruption. the first one is the handing over of the large check for everyone or $2.2 million check for the house candidates were $1 million check from the state committees. just as the court with mcconnell to soft money contributions and inherent risks of corruption there, there is an inherent risk of corruption and that is why i said we limit them how much we can contribute to a political party.

>> unless the money is transferred, you have to get it from the person who wants to corrupt to the person who is going to be corrupting. unless the money can make it for me to be, i don't see where the quick proto- argument is. >> away these joint fundraising committee's work is your hand over a single check who solicited in any candidate who sets up a joint fundraising committee insisted jimmie and the rest of my team. so handing over the check to that candidate seems to me to create a significant risk on the part of that candidate come even though a lot of money is flowing through to others. the party leaders are often going to be the ones who solicit those contributions and they have a particular indebtedness to candidates because of course their power, their authority depends on the party retaining or gaining a majority in the legislature. so they will feel a particular set of indebtedness is helping

not only them, but everybody in massive amounts. >> if i may make my third point. every candidate in the parties affected by this because every candidate is going to get a slice of the money. every candidate will know the person who wrote the multimillion dollars check has helped not only the candidate, but the whole team and that creates a certain sense of indebtedness and if every member of the party could every office holder is likely to be leaned on by the party theaters and the people of butter in >> these might not all stand or fall together. just take this example if you can take a minute and walk me through the step-by-step. you have somebody wants to corrupt a member of the house and this person's strategy is to make contributions to multiple house candidates with the hope, the expectation in the plan that those candidates will transfer the money to the member that this person wants to corrupt.

how is that going to accomplish that given the earmarking regulations and the limits on how much one member can contribute to another. >> i think it's possible, but if somebody had the goal, that circumvention goal, but by far better ways of achieving it would be getting significant companies take in the aggregate cap soft, making significant contributions to state parties in natural parties to transfer without restriction and by making contributions to pacs. >> if you are not going to defend the application of the aggregate limits in that situation come it doesn't follow us apply to the situation are unconstitutional? >> know, first of all i think it could have been in that situation. >> explained to me how it's going to be done. the person gets to number a with

the hope that member and a will give it to member be. if the person even applies making a contribution, that person wants to go to be, that's earmarked. >> in mcconnell and colorado republicans in this court said earmarking is not the outer limit of the government's authority to regulate. the reason the court said that is because a lot of this can be done with winks and nods subtly. i don't think it is a case that earmarking woodwork to prohibit that. i also think when you talk about aggregate limits, they are part of an overall system of regulation and i think they work to keep the circumvention risk and check and they work to make sure you don't have the kind of problem you identified. >> just listening to your dialogue, you heard, this is pretty tough when you try to construct hypotheticals and the

council says no, cotton is part rubber that part wrong with the other one. they may be right. we can't do this, figuring out all of these factual things and in our free we. there hasn't been a full hearing. he seemed to me there are things to explore in respect to the circumvention who is right, should you change hypotheticals lately? there's things to explore and respect to the question of whether being able to read a three-point x million dollars check to a lot of people does sleep the average person to think my first amendment speech in terms of influencing my representative means nothing. there are things to explore in terms of the relationship between what is permissible, spend $40 million independently and what is impermissible, namely spending more than 117,000. none of these have been considered. they would seem relevant.

so what do you think about going into these matters in a district court for the evidentiary aspects can be explored at some length? >> while i think justice breyer, the statute can be upheld under the current state of the record. i take your honor's point, but i do think that you have a substantial record in buckley. you had a substantial record in mcconnell. that substantial record deals iraklion the problem about the massive aggregate contributions pose the inherent danger of corruption and the corrosive appearance of corruption in the case can be decided on that basis. >> the government in the preceding didn't suggest in response to the evidentiary area caring. those sites seem to treat this as a matter that could be

disposed of without an avid bestiary hearing. is that right? >> that's correct, your honor. >> is the point the chief mate if this does limit the pixie on of national -- it drives not regions towards the past and away from the parties. money without these limit to the candidate, to the party, organization, but now instead of going to the pacs. what is your response to that? >> well, we take the constitutional first amendment framework of this court's decisions as a given. the court has determined that independent expenditures do not present a risk to quit procol corruption that allows the regulation.

that contributions, direct contributions to candidates and two parties can pose that risk. >> that's the law. but the question says i'm a what the question is direct enough, given the events of the law, isn't the consequence of this particular provision to stop the vitality of political parties and to encourage, what should i say, you know, drive-by pacs first election. it's not the consequence? >> the answer is we don't know one way or another whether that's a consequence. with all due respect, justice scalia, the party still raise substantial amounts of money, so i don't think that we know. but beyond that, with the congress has made a determination that there is a real risk of quid pro quo corruption and the appearance has regulated with respect to that risk in congress is of

course free to take this into consideration. >> eisai is $3.5 million. if you assume somebody who gives the maximum to ever possible candidate and party he can contribute to throughout the united states, 3.5 million. just to put that in there, how much money is spent by political parties and pacs in all elections throughout the country? in one election cycle? >> that's a good point, justice scalia. take the 2010 elections, not presidential year. parties and candidates together on each side spend approximately $1.5 billion. >> and what about pacs? >> that i don't have the specifics. >> here's the problem. >> what about newspapers that spend a lot of money endorsing candidates in promoting their candidacy? you have to put in that money, too.

that is money directed to political speech. when you add all that up, i don't think 3.5 million is a heck of a lot of money. >> i don't think that's the right way to look at it, your honor. if you think the party has got to get $1.5 billion together to run a congressional campaign, parties and candidates together and you've got a maximum of $3.6 million, that is about 450 people you need to round up. less than 500 people can find the whole match and that i think is part of the problem here that you are going to a situation if you take off the aggregate limits in which there is a very real risk that the government will be run by and for those 500 people and that the public will perceive that the government is being run out i am for the site and the people and that is why we have this aggregate limits. >> the consequence is just to get back in my prior question. the consequences are telling

somebody who doesn't want to get 3.4 million, but wants to contribute to more than nine house candidates, just up to the maximum, the 5000 per double cycle. you are telling him that he can't make a contribution however modest, within the limits congress does not present with corruption. i appreciate the argument you're making about the three-point whatever million dollars check and the need for the aggregate limits to address that. i understand that point. but what do you do with the flipside? you can pretend is pursued with no first amendment cause quite apart from the one that is they are seems to be a direct restriction on much smaller contributions to congress said do not present a problem with corruption. >> i take that point, mr. chief justice. i think the right analytical framework under the first amendment is to think about this in terms of content neutrality. the government's interest in

preventing corruption in the appearance of corruption, which is why brought up the example of the maserati to the secretary of defense is entirely content neutral. >> that doesn't normally get you very far in the first amendment. the poster "the new york times" can only endorsing candidates. it's completely content neutral. you don't hear what the 10 days. >> i would think there would be a content case justification because you are not trying to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption and there's no other neutral justification i can think of why you would impose such a rule. the point is with respect to elected officials and giving us money, there is this content neutral justification. it just doesn't exist with any other entity in the world. yes, it is not for you first amendment costs. that cost is mitigated and this is not a prohibition. you can't make it at the maximum.

>> is there any way to prevent the concern you have about the three-point whatever it is coming million dollars check, without imposing a limit on the person who wants to support 10 candidates? >> i suppose you could try to calculate an aggregate contribution limit that is higher than the one here now, but the problem with that is the appellate start making that argument. they make the argument -- the only argument is made is you cannot have aggregate limit because base contribution limit -- >> they are making the argument that the regulations that already exist about transfers from one entity to another prevent a lot of what your complaint -- what you're worried about. if they are not sufficient, the aggregate on a harikari broadway at trying to get at the problem you're worried about. that's their argument. is that wrong?

there's nothing more that could be done to prevent transfers in joint fund-raising committees or from one member to another or state members to candidates. >> i apologize for repeating myself, justice alito. circumvention is not the only problem. the solicitation of these very large checks is a problem, a direct corruption problem and none of the alternatives have addressed that problem. >> i just don't understand that. at the time the person spends the money to this hypothetical joint, what if they just money and burned it? that would be a corruption problem there? >> they are not going to burn it. >> when does it occur? it occurs when it's transferred to the person who has power and want to corrupt. >> i beg to differ, your honor. it creates a sense of indebtedness on the recipient and party leadership when

delivered and that is the inherent risk of corruption in that situation. it is quite parallel to mcconnell. just need somebody to get to the party because these are not sealed off from each other. they'll have an interest in each other's success. so party leaders in particular feel less restrictive alternatives. now if i could, i'll try to address the circumvention problem. what they've done is come up with a whole series of things. there's not one thing you have to do. you'd have to say segregated accounts. he got to say no giving to pacs who have indicated they would give money to candidates onto her to get the money. you have to do five or six things to do with the risk of corruption. the idea that is less restrictive seems to me like significantly more restrictive means to impose first and then the cost of its own. to pacs will say what you mean we can't say we want to give money to? >> it seems to me being so full to think that the sense of

gratitude that an individual senator or congressman is going to feel because of a substantial contribution to the republican national committee or democratic national committee is any greater than the sense of gratitude that senator or congressman will feel to a pac, which is spending enormous amount of money in his district or in his state for his election. ..

>> well. >> just to be fair, i'm if i'm coming -- understanding that your answer is that buckley settled the issue. no more discussion necessary. it. >> we think the risk of corruption is real. we think, profound when you're talking about the con try wiewtion -- contribution that can be made if you take a lid off contributions. if the -- proves correct, and it is deeply disabling to candidates and parties, congress can address by changing the contribution. >> if this court is having second thought about the rulings that independents expenditures are not corrupting, we could change that part of the law. [laughter] >> and i suggest that you

don't. >> it's remitted -- but the record as far as recall talk about length. i don't like to use corrupting. i use integrity of the process. notion to get people to think that it makes a difference, et. i don't say corruption. when it got this part, -- it was about circumvention. i think you're right. there's a huge corruption aspect to this. we don't have a lot of information in the record about that, do we? can i miss it? >> with respect to mcconnell. >> yeah. >> it's a close parallel. >> it is but -- [inaudible] you think about it. if you talk about it they don't think that way. that's why i've been pushing the idea, you see, of let's go in to this, okay. you want us to go in to it? go in to it.

>> as i understand that, your honor. i would say, i think the record -- after all the limits were enacted. the same statute that legislative record pertains. it goes to the same problem; therefore, i think it bears upon it and it's ample evidence that would justify upholding these limits, and i would strongly urge the court do. >> thank you. >> thank you, miss murphy, you have three minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. a few points. we haven't heard them talk about circumvention today. i think that's because the argument doesn't really work. it's already addressed by all of the multiple measures that bicker contains. to the extent they're not sufficient there are narrower tailored ways to get at this. so what we're hearing today is an corruption argument. as a questioning reveals once you accept the corruption theory that the government is putting

forward here, there really isn't a way to don't draw a line between independent expebtdtures and the $3 million check to all the different individuals in small base limited amounts. there is certainly going to be just as much gratitude to the individuals expense $3.6 million directly supporting one candidate through ads on that candidates' behalf. what we have is a system forcing money out of the of the most transparent way possible to make contributions which is directly to the candidates and the parties and the paths. there's no further question, thank you. thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. the u.s. house is in this week. a number of energy and commerce committee are holding a hearing thursday to exam the health care law's implementation and the chainlts with the website. you watch live on thursday at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. also a quick mention the health

and human services sec fair is expected to testify about the rollout of the insurance exchange as early as next week. friday night, c-span's road to the white house takes you live to des moines, iowa for remarks by texas senator ted cruz. he'll deliver the keynote at the reagan republican dinner. underway on friday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. ♪ what is the most important issue congress should consider in 2014? make a five to seven minute documentary showing varying point of view and be sure to include c-span video. the competition is open to all middle and high school students for the grand prize of $5,000. this year we doubled the number of winners and total prizes. entries are due by january 20, 2014.ou want more information? visit studentcam.org.

>> i never ask a negative question. i think it's insulting thensulto person you want to talk to. it creates a bad impressionressn about what you're doing.oing. you're asking for someone's time because you need information that will lead do you a better a understanding of your subject. metimemes you get negative information when you really don't want it.informion when and you haven't even asked fornd it. i know, i remember calling a kw woman to ask her about a senate-wide luncheon in honor os the first lady. she said to me, quote, i know why you're calling. i you wt meme to repeat those nasty things that nancy reagancy was telling us yesterday about t barbara bush. [laughter] [laughter] actually, all i wanted to find out was how much money the find senate wives had raised for mrs. reagan's drug abuse fund. e in this that telephone call, iee got more than i asked for c andt

used ehavery single word. [laughter] presidential history, american culture. biographer kitty kelly will sit down for your calls and comments live for three hours beginning at noon eastern on in-depth. and in the months ahead look for ore guests including feminism critic and radio talk show host january 5th. right now online at the booktv book club, join other viewers reading "walking with the wind." see what others are saying and post your own comments. find out more at booktv.org/book club. north carolina governor path -- pat mccrory talked about the decision not expand medicaid to lower wage workers. he criticized the operational problems with the federal health care website and doesed the justice department's lawlt against the state --

this is 50 minutes. [inaudible conversations] would you please join me in welcoming our special guest, the governor of north carolina, pat mccrory and becky norton dun lap the vice president here at the heritage foundation. lady and gentleman. [applause]

hopefully microphones are working. >> these mics -- [inaudible] okay. well, welcome, welcome, welcome to the heritage foundation. you know, one of the things we love do at the heritage foundation is bring reformers to our auditorium. it's a great thing to be a reformer and to use principles, conservative principles, the founders' principles to do those kinds of reforms. so today we have brought to our state a reformer. the governor of north carolina, pat mccrory is the 74th governor of that great state. he also served as mayor of charlotte, if you have ever visited charlotte, you know that he's very proud of that city and his experience there. he also served on the city council. but in addition to that he has a

great record in the private sector. he worked for duke energy for quite a few years, and also with sales consulting for a private sector company, and on strategic initiatives. all of these things do a very good job of preparing someone to be the governor of the tenth largest state in the country. so welcome, governor. >> an honor to be here. thank you for having me. [applause] it's good see so many young people too. it's great. >> thank you. governor, we're going have a conversation here today, and there are so many things on my list. we'll just start through it and try to keep an eye on the clock so we have a few minutes left for questions. >> all right. >> tell us a little bit, if you will, first of all, about your governing principles. what do you think about when you think about governing a state as large and diverse as north carolina? >> one principle may surprise you. it's a. i -- i don't think we talk about

enough in state capitol or washington, d.c. that is operations. one of the things that people forget about is executive of the tenth largest state in the united states of america not enough no -- focus is put on operational issues. everyone, including the media, tends to talk about policy and politics. but i think one of the major challenges is of this country, and many states, is how do you get the work done in an efficient and effective way? and we're seeing that with obamacare right now. that debate about obamacare was primarily about policy, which was a good debate on both sides of the issue. but there was very little discussion about how is it going to be implemented and what the details of implementation. what is it going cost? what are the ramifications? i see that in state government also, is that when i came in to office in january of this year, 80% of my cabinet meetings were about operational issues. some of our civil protections

for state workers. how do you reward good state workers, frankly, deal with state workers that might not be doing a good job. is the policy upon where do we needs the road or the politics of road building? therefore we have to think about the operational issues. we had budget issues. from an operational standpoint. my budget director in the audience, in fact, and we have many budget issues. are we really dealing with the true budget issues of the day? are we doing true accounting of what the unfunded liabilities are on the books and off the books? those are operational issues that executives are dealing with in fortune 500 companies every day, and frankly, i think we both you in the heritage foundation, and us in government, need to be talking about operational issues. the other two basic -- two or three basic things required for my cabinet one is ethics. that was the first requirement.

we must go what is right. the second requirement that i have is we have to work as a team. there can't be any turf among my cabinet team. we have to work as one team and the most effective and efficient operations possible. and the third is, initiate policies that have a long-term impact on the state. not just an impact for the next election cycle, but an impact for generations to come that don't just put band aid on short-term fixes but long-term fixes to very complex problems that all of us are dealing with. it's a competitive world. >> that sounds like a lek dhawr could have given in a business cool. -- school. >> we should be thinking like business people but realize we are in a tough political environment. a lot of times, again, we don't think about the operational issues. i encourage -- especially the young people.

put your operational skills in to place. and some of your thinking. >> and of course, your shareholders, so to speak are the tax holders. >> not only that, they are customers. we're doing a total review of dmv right now. what better area than to think about as a retail customer when you walk in to dmv, what is your first impression as you wait an hour and 45 minutes to get a simple renewal of the driver's license? it's the first impression of government, and so we're danger a total business retail assessment of dmv. we hope have some major announcement come january, february time period we're going restructure how you -- get a driver's license in north carolina and hopefully make it more customer-friendly experience. >> that sounds exciting. you also, are kind of at the cusp of an historic time in north carolina where, for the first time, i think in over 100 years, you have a republican governor and republican majorities in the state house

-- the delegates and the senators. how is that kind of changed the outlook about how your party, your administration go about doing business? >> well, i still have the same parameters on whether it be republican or democrat -- i still have the same parameter of ethics and long-term solutions, and breaking down the barriers. and political turf. and whether you're in one party or you're not you're going still going have some of the issues you have to deal with. it's been great working with a team. i would say in my first nine months of office we got 80% of what we wanted from the republican house and senate. which was a pretty good track record. there were some things where i disagreed. tax reform, for example, we initiated the most i did -- dynamic tax reform we saw in the nation in the past four or five years. we were the only state in the nation that did tax reform. it wasn't easy. i had some people on one side,

in my senate, primaries primarily who wanted to institute tax reform. i didn't think the numbers added up. as conservative, i want to make sure that the numbers add up. i want to do true accounting and make sure we have a balance budget in the long run while trying to stimulate the economy. so i had to require them to comprise. i had to comprise some, but in doing so, we came up with a pragmatic reasonable tax reform, which frankly, stepped on the toes of everyone a little bit. we knew we had to change to become -- not only competitive with a nation and the world, but, you know, i got to be beat nicky and bill mcdonald next door to me. we have good republican governors that are my friends and my competitors. and we're fighting for jobs against each other. and in doing so, i'm going respect what virginia, tennessee, and south carolina are doing, but i've told nicky, a good friend of mine, we're going beat you for jobs. she thinks the same way.

we act as though we are private sector competitors. >> it -- >> we're also partners in new jersey. >> yeah. it sounds to me, know, correct me if i'm mistaken, it sounds to me, first of all, you actually are personally, deeply engaged in coming up with solutions working with the legislative branch which perhaps washington can take a few lessons from. and secondly, that you have the view that principle cannot be comprised but preferences. >> absolutely. you work within a philosophy. within the philosophy, you know, you have to get it there. and i asked her with my legislature, i focused on primarily three areas. the economy, education, and government efficiency. frankly, everything outside that area i didn't put a lot of attention to. now, i had certain state reps and state senators who focused on other things, which they need to. i want to focus as a executive

branch on economy, and government efficiency. in doing so, i asked for tax reform and we helped present the major plan for tax reform. we asked for transportation reform. we initiated the first transportation reform since 1988. we asked for state personnel reform. i got about 30% of what we really need. we asked for major reform in commerce. it's so much confusion in my commerce department in dealing with customers new customers and existing customers. that we had all the middle people involved. we need streamline. in fact, we're going privatize part of my commerce department. this is radical -- what some say is radical change. i think it's pragmatic change. >> that sounds exciting. tell us about the commerce department reform. >> u yo know what was happening was that we had at lough different -- a lot of different departments set up many years ago for good

reasons. we had a biotech center, the charlotte regional partnership which was i was as mayor of charlotte. we had all the different groups working for commerce, but not in a coordinated, effective, and efficient manner. and also had a lot of overhead. and the customer was confused when they came to north carolina who do we talk to if we are interested in investing in north carolina. what we found out, they had to talk to all the different groups. no one person was in charge. i don't think that's good dmer -- customer service. we are pulling all the people under one umbrella and privatizing the marketing of north carolina and make it more responsive to the customer and those who are in the private sector of my commerce department. they'll be rewarded. it will be paid for that. but it's going to be based upon results. not based upon kind of a civil servicemen talty. >> that sounds very exciting. let me turn quickly, since you're talking about economic growth, tourism, and things like

that to transportation. you know, we think as conservatives in government has a very few responsibilities. but what responsibilities they they should do well. of course, the infrastructure to allow people and goods and services to move around not only the commonwealth, or the state, but the nation is a responsibility. so tell us about your transportation reform. >> well, first of all, i kind of consider myself -- i'm an infrastructure fan. i believe government has a major role in infrastructure to support the private sector. and i consider myself kind of an eisenhower republican. in fact, i don't think we as republicans talk about dwight david eisenhower enough. not only he was he a great ally and supreme commander during world war ii and american hero. but he was a great president for two terms. and when he did was bring about a vision of infrastructure for the future. he connected rural with urban areas with the intersenate highway system. he connected the east with the west for the highway system.

which we're still enjoying today. to me, that was well-spent federal money. but with a vision connecting the economy and commerce with government's responsibility for infrastructure. and here, after the 1950s when he was president -- he was president when i was born, we're still seeing the result of that. now, i took that same philosophy as mayor of charlotte. i introduced a 1996, a 25-year infrastructure plan. there are now in the 18th or 19th year of the plan. and it's showing results. what we did was we showed the taxpayers exactly what the plan was before the taxpayers were asked to invest in it. what i want to do for the state of north carolina is present a 25-year -- even a 50-year infrastructure plan in four areas. transportation, energy, water, and communications. it's dangerous to say i have

three or four ideas. you're afraid to forget one these days. but we -- i think we as republicans -- we as conservatives, need to present a vision for the next generation. a vision of where is our transportation going to take us? how is it connecting commerce and create jobs? show that plan in 3-d, this is the plan for the next 50 years. for your kids and your grand kids. then we need to do the same thing with communications especially in rural areas. rural america is hurting right now. i'm telling you the unemployment rate is 15 to 20, to 25%. small rural towns in north carolina and throughout the united states. we've got to connect them to the economic centers if of the world much less our states. one way to do that is through communication. and other type of infrastructure. same thing with energy. if we do not have cheap and

reliable energy in our country in the future, we're going suffer. that's what help build manufacturing, our nation. right now i have no idea what our energy plan is for our nation, but i think part of my job is to present an energy plan for the state of north carolina. i'm planning to do just that. >> we know it is very exciting because in all of these areas, there are much that the private sector can do to come alongside, you know, government ideas like this to provide the goods and services that people need. do you envision the private sector playing a role in any transportation ideas? and obviously in energy that would be the case. >> absolutely. in fact, the private sector from trucking firms to infrastructure firms, they want to be at the table. i think there are incredible opportunities for public/private cooperation and public/private partnership in the building of new roads. it shouldn't be all government. it should be incentive for the private sector to build a quicker and faster and even have

the hot lanes where money is paid in certain ways and governor danielles did this in indiana. we're looking at certain ways to share a private/public sector risk in the future infrastructure. most companies know that if you not have the infrastructure for the future, they're not going move here. so you to have the ports, you have to have the highway and the rail. this is what stays for generations. the biggest mistake that i think this administration made, and i said it in the wall "the wall street journal" editorial when i was mayor. with the stimulus money, which was almost $1 trillion in stimulus money. most people think the money was spent on infrastructure. in fact, very little was spent on infrastructure. at least roosevelt andize -- eisenhower democrat and republican spent money on infrastructure that is still with us today. what we did during the last six years we put money on short term

infrastructure. repaving roads or widening the road a little bit. the money is gone. that was borrowed money, which your kids and your grand kids will be paying for many years to come. it would have been an excellent opportunity to show a vision for the future and invest that money which would stay while you pay the debt. now you're paying the debt on potholes that have to be refilled again. that's basically what i said in the wall street wall street -- "the wall street journal" six or seven years. >> as we talk about transportation being important for economic development, so too is an educate citizens. talk to me a little bit about the education reform you advanced and nut places some of the challenges you see ahead? >> well, one of the first policies that i talked about, actually, when i ran in '08. i lost the gubernatorial election in '08 during the

presidential election time. but i stress then that there's not emphasis on vocational training on technical training on math and science training. right now, i think, unof the biggest challenges of the united states of america there's no no one to replace the baby boomers who are engineering or technicians. in fact, even with a high unemployment rate in our country, there are job openings for welders, there are job owners for mechanics, electricians, and that pay a lot more money than four-year college degrees at this point in time. i think we as a country have mislead young people saying the only way to success is to have a four-year college degree. i think that is a great way to success, but i think another pathway to success is to get a two-year technical degree or certification. very similar to what you see in germany during the last 20/25

years. it's well-respected. it's seen as pregnant -- press pretentious. we need to do the same thing in america and the economy has to have it. the companies have to have the next generation. understand an hdac system. understand how to fix things, repair things, and innovate things. we're not talking about that. i think we got caught up in the little academic elitism thinking everyone had to have master's degree. the economy doesn't need everyone to have a master's degree. you have to have vocational training. >> we need "the master" plumbers and master electricians. >> i used to tell a story where i a person put in wood floors in my house. he was working his tail off and he -- have you ever seen someone put down wooden floors in it's a science. you have to understand agree onlity and algebra. it's a science. after working on a hot day at my house he put down.

here i was a college boy saying hey, why don't you stay over for begin -- dinner. he said i'm going to eat dinner at my house on the lake. that's a pretty nice place to live. i'm sure he a nice house there. he deserved it. he deserved it. he had a skill in which the market needed. it's one area of education reform. the first bill i signed as governor was a vocational career path degree for high school students. a curriculum for high school students which they have a choice four-year college curriculum for high school students or vocational curriculum. by the way, you can change your mind. one is not easier than the other. they are just different. they are different. we should respect each one. >> well, i think it's important point underscore here that not only are you emphasizing the

options but student and their parents can make different choices as students mature and change their idea and minds. that's huge. >> in fact, you know, a lot of people start vocational training end upstarting a business. then they might end up getting a college degree and master's degree in business or a law degree to help thm run a business they started. things happen in different orders. heck, i have seen a lot of four-year college students go back to a two-year school. i have a niece that graduated from east carolina university and she went back and got her nursing degree at the vocational school. it doesn't always have to happen in the order that we seem to think that the institutions require. the market might demand -- >> now. >> we follow the markets. >> yes. you also have done some things, i understand, to help students that might be in failing schools. >> no doubt about it. we -- first of all, we have to measure

results. one of the first thing we did in the budget, i'm very proud of this. even in our universities our two-year community colleges, is that we ought not pay government funds to school-based on how many students they have. but what are the results? what are the results of reading and math and basic skills? and their graduation records, but also the result of getting those kids jobs not just debt but jobs. so what we did, for example, our two-year community college we changed the formula a little bit. we reward those classes that cost more that have a smaller volume of kids or students in those classes. but they have about -- 100% job placement rate. we shouldn't punish them for that. because it costs more.

we ought to think the same outcome for our elementary schools or middle schools and our high schools. so we're thinking long-term. >> how about the tuition tax credit scholarship funds that has gone in place? >> what we're doing, we're doing several things. first of all, i'm a big promoter of charter schools. which, by the way, most people don't know are public schools. i think there's a lot of mischaracterization of charter schools. charter schools are public schools. we also have a voucher system where i call it a scholarship system. those kids especially cannot get their needs met due to the public school maybe not having what they need. and so we're doing a lot of different things. and we're also want to do pay-for-performance for our teachers. we instituted a system. we put together a teachers' committee. which will help me come up --

government come up with the idea how do we reward good teachers? and, you know, all of us go to school the principles, students, and other teachers know who the good teachers are. don't you? everyone knows who is the good teacher, the bad teacher, the easy teacher. we all do it. in high school, we know in college. we need to start rewarding the good teachers. that's what we want to do and pay for performance system for high schools and elementary schools. and we also, i think, need to pay our math and science teachers more money based upon the market. they tend to have a higher attrition rate. that can change year by year in and year out. i was recruiter for duke power company. sometimes you pay electrical engineers more than civil engineers. based on the marketplace. sometimes you pay a business major more than a liberal arts major based upon the marketplace. i think we need adjust the market-place pay standards.

>> it varies year by year. >> one of the areas heritage has been deeply involved in education reform is the issue of common core. and i know in north carolina the legislature passed a legislation putting common core in place. as we understand from some of our allies around the state, that's is getting some critical review and perhaps some reexamination. is that something your education team is taking look at? >> i'm actually an advocate of demon core as a concept. especially as a emphasis on math and science. if we do not get better in math and science, basic reading in the nation we will not be competitive with the rest of the world. i think our standards should be worldwide standards. the problem is that it's implementation. and i think right now north carolina -- there are over 100 tests that have to be given by teachers.

they're now only testing teaching by a test. i think that's far too many tests. i think 13 more were added due to the race to the top federal grants that were extended. and one of the reasons north carolina got that because these new tests of common core. i'm an advocate of common core. you cannot just ask teachers to do only tests. so i think the problem is not common core. the problem is often in the implementation of common core, and thinking this way instead of bigger picture. >> i'm going say i'm a virginia. we are competitive in education too. we think our standards in virginia are actually better than the national standards. >> i have no -- >> be careful. >> i have no problem with national standards. but the states should determine their standards. but i'm telling you right now, every state standard should be worldwide standards that get better math and science and the basic reading. that's hurting our country. i think the biggest challenge to

our country. >> well, it is no -- it is not something that heritage takes lightly, of course, we watch the district of columbia education system, and we see firsthand here that so many young children are actually forced to go to schools that are failing and not safe. >> and you had a superintendent, frankly, a mayor who was pushing for higher standards. >> that's right. >> and demanding results of the teachers and the principals and they kicked them out. >> yep. >>? -- which is a sad thing. >> competition is good. >> competition is the best thing for education. by the way, i'll tell you another thing that is going to change competition. this right here. this and the ipad. or any time of device. it's going connect the rich with the poor. the poorest person can get the best education we can connect them. triewrl urban.

you'll be able to take -- in fact, now you can take chemistry classes on the ipad. of course, you can actually pour chemical from one to another through the a simulation on the ipad. i think education is going to change in the future. it won't be about brick and mortar. we put in to education. it will be more about operating expense. using technology. it means we don't depend upon technology by itself. we need to facilitate. if the public education doesn't recognize this quick enough, the private sector will. and it will go around the public sector. georgia tech, for example, now offering just three or four weeks ago offered courses for half the price through technology than they offer on campus and believe me, kids are going do that if they can say for a student pad. the marketplace is going to look at technology in a more aggressive way in a short period

of time. >> okay. let me shift gears once again and talk a little bit about medicaid expansion. this is obviously a challenge. heritage has been actively researching in this area. some of the experiences you had in north carolina might provided some lessons, let's say, that one can learn at the state level about the expansion and reform. >> first of all, you have to understand medicaid expansion is a part of the obamacare legislation. in fact, the supreme court ruling that came out of washington was really 4--4-1. the one vote was chief justice robert. which gave the state a choice on whether or not they do medicaid expansion or not. that was the one vote. one of the unique supreme court ruling in our history. at least he did that. what is ironic is i made a decision as governor and so did

my legislature. we decided not to do medicaid expansion. it's almost in the media almost says you're not doing medicaid expansion. they don't realize it's part of obamacare. and the reason we did not do medicaid expansion, first of all, we couldn't deal with the debt of our existing which is for women, the elderly, shoulder and disabled. what medicaid expansion does was show more of the population and i could argue for good reasons. because they're being served often and so forth. when my current obamacare couldn't hajtdz -- handl medicare cost overrides that were already happening. my state ended up being over

$500 million over projection set forth by the previous legislature and the previous governor. over $500 million. over projection. out of a $20 billion budget. it's a pretty big hit. there went all of my teachers raises right there. infrastructure. so the medicaid expansion is i think one of the most difficult issues on the governor's plates right now. let tell me the other issue we are having. that is that the riewlts -- rules and standards weren't written. in fact, even in the last four or five weekses the administration is sending us new on medicaid. nobody is talking about it. we got a new rag which might force us to do it whether we want to or not in the upcoming year. a new thing came out five, six, search weeks ago that said if a person goes to the hospital and say they cannot pay for it, they

might not qualify for medicaid. they can still sign up for medicaid. if they do that, the hospital and that person can bill the state of north carolina for two months after two months if the state find out they did not qualify for medicaid. they will be taken off medicaid but the state has to pay for the two months nap is two months of tests, services, that we did not have budgeted. so it's almost around that 4-41 vote by the administration. which then says the state has to take 100% of the responsibility. so now i have to make a decision. wait a minute, the feds said they'll give it to me for three years. after the third year, we had to pay 10%. one of the reasons i didn't do that is because i didn't know

10% of what. 10% of what. we no idea what the future cost would be. now that the new has come in, i'm in a very difficult position of what decision to make. we checked the constitutionality of it. our lawyers said the administration has every right do. even based upon the supreme court. it come as surprise to me. these are the difficult program fors of obamacare right now. and frankly haven't been discussed enough publicly. all of the publicity has been on the computer system, which everyone knew wasn't 0 going work. i have my own computer system they inheshted that had been delayed by a year or two by my previous administration. i'm having a heck of the time with the rollout of a state-wide i. s. system for health care. the minute we looked at that the first two or three weeks, i actually said there's no way the

federal government can do that. i think everyone knew there was going to be an operational break. it goes full circle. >> i must say you have some outstanding member of your house congressional district who have been really trying to point out some of the challenges. >> tom til lis, the speaker of the house is running for the senate right now. >> oh, is he? >> he's on the campaign trail, but he comes from ibm and he understands operations. so much of our discussions were about i. s. issues. another basic operational issue was that preprevious administration in state government which were the democrats they were underfunding basic maintenance of building i. s. systems. it catches up to you. it's easy to build a new building and worry about operations later. but belief --

believe me, your roof, your ac system -- >> those things wear out. that's for sure. >> they wear out. you mess wander capital and transfer cost between the two which are basic per county and it dach -- catches up to you. >> one of the big constituencies in north carolina is a constituency that is really important to all americans. that's the military. talk to us a little bit about some of the challenges you face such a large number of people serving in the military and the challenges that brings. >> well, it's a challenge but i also see it as an opportunity. as we withdrawal from afghanistan and iraq, you're going have a lot of military people with technical skills and leadership skills that industry going to be seeking. so we're setting up, in fact one of the reason i'm in town today. i'm meeting with the u.s. army, and we're going setting up job

training praments. -- programs. when the returning veterans come back. we can use them as recruitment tool for industry, existing and new industry to return back to the private sector. one of the things we know we have to do is some of them already know how to fix a car, fix a truck, or fix a computer system or do welting. they haven't got the certification. what we're trying to do is can we jump through the hoop of a bureaucracy and have only of the military people test out instead of going through the process of having to sign up for courses, which they can easily do in their sleep because they've been doing it under fire in iraq or afghanistan. why do they have to go through all the courses? we're looking at ways question test them out. we have already tested out the truck drivers. we are kind of doing a speed up certification for truck drivers that are returning from the military. we can place them immediately in the jobs that are open in north carolina.

>> one of the other places where we have heard that is an interest is actually in teaching. some of these veterans are excellent teachers and could move to a classroom. is that something you're thinking about? >> absolutely. not only for veterans but the private sector. >> i actually have my teaching degree. >> oh. >> my goal was to be a teacher. in the private sector was a manager of training for a utility company. i did teach -- adult teaching. but right now, for me, to go back to teaching, i would have to go through a different hoops and recertify my teaching degree. i think i'm pretty qualified. >> i think so. >> in civics at least and a little bit of history. [laughter] and we need to make it -- especially easier for engineers, math, and algebra people coming from private sector and return to teaching or get to teaching. not put them through what we typically require of a college

-- guard. >> this is wonderful. i wonder if you mind take a couple of questions. >> i would be honored. >> we have a couple of mics. i'll let you identify a questioner, andrew. please, identify yourself. >> hi, governor. my name is daniel. i'm a reporter for a website called talking point memo. >> what? >> talking points memo. i was wondering if you could talk about the voter id law, which is getting a the will have attention right -- a lot of attention right now. really what your take on the lawsuit is. it seems like this is the second in a number of lawsuits that the obama administration wants to put on states related to the preclearance standards. i was wondering for you could respond that. maybe address how your administration is approaching it especially with cooper, who is planning to run for governor and a democrat. he said he wants to follow your lead on this. >> well, first of all, i think

the erick holder's lawsuit is both political and without merit. our laws greatly exaggerated especially be the new york thyme and other publications that can are common sense laws that -- over 32 states currently do in the united states of america, and i know as he didn't sunni of the other 32 states. we have the exact number of early voting hours open which the national media doesn't talk about as we if before. we're just trying to take some of the politics out of where you place the early voting which is extremely political. in fact, new york does not have early voting. north carolina does. and i noticed holder is not suing the state of new york. and we're very -- we have even more transparency in our voting rules where now we actually are prohibiting lobbyists from bungled moneying

which we're allowed to do in the past. we have stricter rules for lobbiests. the list goes on and on and on. but, you know, we require a voter id to get a tattoo to be get sudafed, to get food stamps, to get on an airplane, to get almost any government service in north carolina right now. you have to have an id. and we're -- our legislation is actually offering free ids and the first election in which you have to have these id in place is 2016 election. so people have three years to get an id. by the way, we still have early voting and voting by mail, which you can do early voting which you don't need an id on. someone can do it from a nursing home through the mate at this point in time. so i think our voting id laws by the national media, and yes the local media in north carolina has been greatly exaggerated and

common sense reform which protects the integrity of our ballot box. regarding the attorney general. my only comment he can have the personal opinion. as a lawyer, he should not publicize your personal opinion if you're going be defending people you are promoting this common sense law. good lawyers don't do that. >> very good. thank you, governor. here. yes? please. >> governor, grace marine turner -- [inaudible] i want to ask you about tax policy, because i'm interested in your idea about tax reform in north carolina. scott hog and steve edison both worked for or closely with heritage over many years had a piece in the "the wall street journal" about the difficulty of tax reform at the federal level primarily because of the complexity of how it's going to be scored. flat, static scoring.

>> i've been through it. >> i know. and i'm interested in how u in north carolina how you sphwoand get through -- intend to get through the area. to show the incredible economic growth that can come from lower tax rates even though with static scoring that's hard for budget people or budget persons here. >> first of all, i have never met a liberal or conservative who is against tax reform until it hits the one tax break they might get. and i will say this, but liberals and conservatives can be rather hypocritical of this. my opposition report came from both sides of the aisle who said i'm for tax reform but you better not touch that. it might have been an interest group they were close to, a loophole associated with their own business. even the state legislator's business. everyone is for tax reform until it's their loophole that we might close. and, you know, right now, you know, we reduce the corporate

tax rate and the income tax rate, which i think are the two tax rates which hindrance are competitive way that retain and recruit business. i had to step on the toes of some people when you go a movie now you have to pay a seals tax. -- sales tax. we have a sales tax on movie theater tickets. make up for the income tax that we reduced. by the way, we now have a tax on newspapers. maybe that's one reason newspapers are mad at me. i don't know. they haven't brought up the conflict. we have a tax on newspaper. it's more of a consumption tax as opposed to a tax punishing productivity. i'm an advocate of rewarding productivity. that's the type of tax philosophy i have. and so you to sell that. i've had my most conservative

businessman say i'm for that but i can't believe you closed the tax loophole on my law firm. i said we did because you're not going have any clients if you don't have any businesses in north carolina. >> okay. >> that's just to let you know, you've got sell the long-term impact not the short term. >> we like that idea of encouraging people to become producers. now -- >> manufacture -- i'm a strong advocate in two areas we have to emphasize more. we have to be a country and my state has to be a country that makes things and builds things and innovates thing. and ag -- grow things. produce things. ag is still huge in our country. we don't talk about it. and energy. we have to have an energy policies. i'm a big advocate of drilling offshore and also inland drilling. and i encourage while i'm in d.c. here to support governor mcdonnell and myself to allow us to begin the process off the

atlantic coast for natural gas and oil. >> well, there are so many things we didn't get to. first of all, let me say we would love to have you come back. and, you know, do another agenda. let me just ask you a couple of quick questions as we wrap up. so you economic growth in north carolina. things have turned around bit, and are you -- >> the rate has gone down 16%, but we were the third highest unemployment rate in the country. most people didn't realize that. we're the sixth highest now. it's not good enough. i'm not about to brag about that. i want to be the sixth lowest. that would be the visionary goal. but north carolina -- we've got unleash the resources. the energy resources, the manufacturing resources, our universities, our ag, and we've got start treating our people as customers and not adversary. >> it sounds like a good trendline. one final question: nascar.

[laughter] >> i'm big nascar fan. we only had one wreck. [laughter] >> but nascar is big in north carolina. >> you've been to the nascar hall of fame. >> i have been. it's wonderful. in charlotte. >> yep. >> everyone should go and visit that. most people know what they see on television or read in the headlines of the sports page and they never really get to the understanding. >> what -- let me tell you from a business why i'm a fan of nascar and -- they are great people. get well with the blood clot, ryan. but let tell me you what the nascar industry does. the private sec forjobs in nascar. you go rick hendrix machine shop. first of all, you can eat off the floor. you have many engineers, you have engine builders. what is happening is as mayor and governor, i'm using that work force to recruit the

automobile industry and the defense industry. because they can repair things quickly. notice how quick they repair after a wreck? well, that's what the automobile and the deafen industry do. so talent of the people who work on these crews is high-tech. so it's not just for travel and tourism they support the great races that we have in north carolina, but it's also to recruit new industry become a hub of that type of manufacturing talent in north carolina. >> that's great. we have a creative, innovative, dynamic governor, let's thank him for coming to heritage today. [applause] >> thank you very much. [applause] thank you very much. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the u.s. house is in this week. a number of the energy and commerce committee are holding the hearing thursday to exam the health care law's implementation. and the challenges with the website. you can watch live on thursday at 9 a.m. eastern on c-span. also a quick mention the health and human service secretary is expected to testify about the rollout of the insurance exchange as early as next week. and friday night, c-span's road to the white house takes you live to des moines, iowa for remarks by texas senator ted

cruz. he'll deliver the keynote at the republican reagan dinner. if gets underway friday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. ♪ c-span student cam video competition asked the most important issue congress should consider in 2014. make a five to seven minute documentary showing varying point of view. the competition is open to all middle and high school student for the grand prize of $5,000. this year we doubled the number of winners in total prizes. entries are due by january 20, 2014. need more information? visit studentcam.org. i think that women getting a complex message. in the middle of a sociological revolution. young women are told they have to have a great career, great mothers, they have to be thin, they have to be good looking, they have to manage a house well, and there is a sense of

entitlement. i can do everything that a young man does that includes having a glass of wine or two after work. drinking to wind down, and women tend to medicate depression, anxiety, and loneliness. i think there's a lot of anxiety in this generation in term of how do i manage it all? and so when we look at who is drinking the most, we're seeing the professional women, the educate women, and i don't think this is what gloria had in mind. the closing gender gap in the world of risky drinking. sunday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific on "after words." part of booktv. online at the book club join other viewers reading "walking with the wind" by john lewis. see what others are saying and post your own comment. find out at booktv.org/bookclub. [applause]

[applause] [applause] this is 40 minutes. [inaudible conversations] friends, on behalf of the embassy and myself -- [laughter] i think we -- scottish independent. we traflt -- traveled a substantial way but we still have a job do. [laughter] [applause]

we are where a new chapter in a nation's history. in less than one year's time, the people of scotland have the opportunity of a generation. that opportunity in september 18, 2014 is this; to build a prosperous country, to create a just society to be become an independent country. [applause] ..

allison hunter and brian adam. it was an honor to speak up brian's funeral this summer as we celebrated the contribution of that outstanding human being. we all know that ryan adam did an enormous amount to encourage and inspire young people particularly those from overseas to they get involved in politics. i'm delighted to announce that the s&p and the scottish parliament will now be dedicated in ryan adams memory. [applause]

we are standing on the shoulders of giants that kept the scottish flame alive and we relish the next 11 months. so let's keep these colleagues in our hearts as we remember how lucky we are to live in this moment. let's use that inspiration to secure scotland's place as a full and independent member of the community of nations. [applause] friends it's not about the scottish national -- or a victory for the campaign or even for that huge coalition of enthusiasm supporting it. it will be above all an act of national self confidence and national self belief.

the people of scotland have by far the greatest stake in the success and we are by far the best place to take decisions about our future. i know people at home watching right now and across the country want to know more and want to hear about the benefits. they are hungry for information that we have undertaken to provide that information. as delegates, we know that more people know about independence the more likely they are to vote yes. last month rochester debates were held to the referendum itself. there's a balance between those in favor of independent sources and those under cited. the significant thing is this. a couple of these debates having heard the arguments people were then asked how they would vote. a majority for independence. why? and people hear the can-do optimism of the yes campaign against the cant do of the no

campaign then they vote yes. [applause] just a few weeks ago students at the university where invited to listen to a debate on roberts. i am told that 200 came out. at the start of that debate 59% were no voters and 29% were yes. after hearing its 51% yes and 38% noaa swing by my calculations of 25%. [applause] and it must have been short for him.

the evolution would kill the snp stone dead. [laughter] according to george we should all be past tense by now. i have got a message for for george and the no campaign. the snp majority government in scotland the movement for self-determination is alive and well and we intend to win this referendum. [applause] and for many people perhaps for most people its economic issues the bread and butter issues that matter the most. we have all heard the question can scotland afford to be independeindepende nt? independence for me will always be the essential issue of whether scotland could be a

successful independent country that is in fact no longer any real debate. just ask the senior figures in the no campaign. prime minister says quote it would be wrong to suggest that scotland could not be another successful independent country. mr. alastair darlings says it's not if scotland could survive because of course it could says alastair darling. i don't make it a habit of competing with the prime minister darling. i just let them agree with each other. in the statements they are undoubtably there undoubtably correct in here is why. scotland is a country rich in fortune both human talent and natural resources.

our food and drink industry is entering a golden era. scotland has been declared the top travel destination for this year. investment is at a 15 year high. tidal energy can make scotland a green energy powerhouse of europe for decades to come. we are hot that of life science innovation. delegates lets resolve this over the next year. let's never allow our opponents the independents to diminish the abilities of our people. [applause] let's lets look and laugh at that u.k. cabinet ministers coming up to tell us that the 10 plagues of egypt would descend

upon an independent scotland. it doesn't take at london -- for pointing out danny alexander yesterday announced a scheme for two highland villages and that's great greater problem is they no longer have filling stations. [laughter] [applause] only the liberal democrats. thinking in terms of the of the prime minister's position is surely not untenable. he promised scotland a respectful debate and the guns of the whitehall machine. he wants to dig tape the debate

without debating himself and power at both of democratic responsibility and that is simply not on. so here is the deal. applause go to so here's the deal prime minister. we will publish the white paper and you and i must debate prime minister to first minister. [applause] [applause] the choice is yours. step up to the plate or step out of the debate. [applause]

after that i will take on whichever of your substitutes you care to put up. [laughter] but here is some facts that are certainly worth debating. for every one of the last 50 years scotland has generated more tax than the u.k. without one single penny from the north sea. it's virtually identical to the u.k.. the economy is almost one fifth bigger and we have used six times as much oil as we need. oil and gas is a huge -- they predict a wholesale value of 1.5 trillion pounds and a national catastrophe. the house is embarrassed and so they should be. there only two countries in the

world with with the great function of having to oil resources failed to establish for future generations the u.k. and the public of iraq. vast oil wealth is not a problem for scotland. the problem are scotland is for 40 years the minister has squandered that amazing oil wealth. [applause] this takes us does it not to the heart of the independence debate no one really doubts that scotland could be independent. the debate is about whether scotland should be independent. the official campaign against the proposition call themselves project -- it's not some insult thought up by the yes campaign. it is itself description.

the no campaign actually describe themselves as project fear. andy burnham captured it. last month he said he is opposed to independence because he doesn't want to drive up the dash start driving on the right when it comes to scotland. [laughter] that is strange. i thought labor had been driving on the right for some time. [applause] mr. burnham's suggestion is a wealthy addition to all the rest that the mobile foreign charges the annexation of the fast lane

embassies refusing to hold whiskey receptions project fear? more like project fast. [applause] the real central question of the coming campaign is who should be taking decisions about scotland. there's a commonsense argument based on our experience. the record of scotland's parliament demonstrates that it's undeniably the case that decisions should be taken here. supported unanimously by every party at the parliament. smoking in public places protecting national health service from privatization access to education based on the ability to land not the ability to pay.

a record number of police officers on our streets. hard-pressed families saved 12,000 pounds when every other household ellis rising. friends where we have the power we have chosen a different path, a path that reflects scotland's social them a credit consensus are shared or aggressive values our as a society. a something for nothing country. really? personal care for all the people and tuition for young people cast aside as something from nothing? this is not a something for nothing country but a something for something society and this party will defend the social progress made by our parliament. [applause]

the point is this. with just a taste of independence we have been able to deliver failed policies elsewhere. independence law and order have helped make scotland a better place. extending power with things we don't control the welfare system our energy supplies are injured national security. because there is no doubt that we are paying a heavy price for westminster decisions. on wednesday i met with the prime minister in london the joint ministerial. i want to give you a taste of three aspects of that meeting. to get an idea of the difference of perspective between the governments not just between the governments but between the political cultures in these islands.

youth unemployment. perhaps the fundamental issue facing society as we move out of the recession. scotland is the only country in europe where youth employment -- we have big youth guarantee to any youngster between ages of 16 and 19 gets the offer of help within four months to its quick intervention and it's effective. there is a european proposal to extend this. westminster opposes it not because it's not a good idea but basically because it's european idea. we need freedom to respond to european initiatives and the best way for scotland not to have a proposal in training for youngsters started through a daschle and so i'm delighted to announce a further initiative today. the allocation of the 60 million pounds package supporting 43 projects across the country supporting more than

3000 jobs. from the development of the gateway to an investment funded flight all of these projects will support opportunities for our young people into you know what? the fact that it comes from the european initiative is something will not concern the young people benefiting -- [inaudible] [applause] we shall not allow action on youth unemployment to be restricted by the parochial insularity of westminster politicians. i. [applause] and then at the joint ministerial committee a discussion on the great sporting and cultural events being held on these islands. the cultural city is a great

event. the commonwealth games will be a great event. but one of the reasons, one of the many reasons we all feel positive about lasko 2014 is we are not financing a great game out of money which should be going to good causes. more than a year after the olympics scottish good causes are still waiting for the return of 140 million pounds of funding that was diverted to fund the london games. in contrast every penny piece of funding from the commonwealth games and its legacy is being delivered by the scottish government the city of glasgow and the sponsorship and it will be the greatest event that scotland has ever seen. [applause] the third subject that came up was the bedroom tax forgive --

targeted at some of the most vulnerable in our society. the poll tax became a symbol of why devolutiodevolutio n was necessary. the bedroom tax is becoming a symbol of why independence is necessary. [applause] it was supposed by 90% of scottish mps in the house of commons get it still passed and penalizes 80 thousand households in scotland including a person with a disability. in august it was -- by a rapid tour of the united nations the chairman of the conservative party said it was disgraceful that she was commenting. the disgrace is the united nations representative was forced to comment on an

injustice of 21st century scotland. that's the disgrace. [applause] delegates let us be clear one of the first accept the snp and the government of an independent scotland will be to scrap the bedroom tax. [applause] the playwright david greg says independence allows us to explore every aspect and ask yourself the question does it have to be like this. i don't believe it does. 40 years ago the previous labour westminster government attempted to sell off their oil -- these plants of the time were fiercely resisted in scotland and elsewhere and rightly so.

with this fund we were reminded of the painful lesson. regardless of what people think in scotland or belief the westminster is determined to sell off scotland's public assets than they will find a way. in the face of massive opposition ignoring the wishes of almost all scottish mps the postal service was privatized by a government we didn't even elect. the sale of profitable business as a good thing the equivalent of selling a 10 for a fiver and calling it a success. the latest installment of westminster's privatization of session. we as a government have the powers to protect our services we have succeeded. despite privatization elsewhere in the u.k. scottish water remains in public hands and low lo and behold scotland now has the lowest average household water bills in these islands.

[applause] if we can make a success of that he can make a success of -- i give this pledge the snp government will bring the royal meal back into public hands. [applause] in a properly run democracy government plans to reconcile collective action and individual aspiration. a socially committed postal service are essential platforms which allow business to grow and communities to prosper. scots are famed across the world for our entrepreneurial spirit.

we don't need lectures on entrepreneurialism. the economic system ain't working for scotland. economic performance in areas is greater in the u.k. than in any other european nation and it has created one of the biggest gaps between rich and poor in the developed world with the most unequal society on the oecd. that means people find it harder to get along and to get good jobs. and it means something else. that sense of inequality offends the basis of the good society and stifles ambition. no independent scottish government would ever accept such an appalling waste of talent and potential. [applause] so there is there is a choice and there's a choice between two futures.

you can accept our status as an economic region of an unbalanced economic system or embrace the powers of the national economy the power to compete and grow businesses in scotland to ensure the best and brightest can realize their ambitions in their own country if they so choose. that is the economic prize of independence. [applause] friends it has been in existence for 90 years. i grew up as a boy and lithgow and all of my life i've been conscious of -- but right now that plan is idle and cold. as the standoff continues -- to let us inject some common sense into this position. to the union drop and a strike into the management fire up the

plant and negotiate against the background of a working facility not one which is in mortal danger. find common ground. let us be quite clear. scotland wants to see grange mouth operating. fire up the plant and do it now. [applause] [applause] friends no one complains an independent scotland will be able to wish away global competition. we will still be affected by it influenced by it and often challenge by it. no one in this world -- but there is a difference which can make the difference. an independent scotland will help with the full range of powers and the people will have

a government which is on their side. delegates right now the westminster government that people and gotland overwhelmingly rejected his giving tax cuts to millionaires at the same time cutting the income of -- in contrast almost a year ago the scottish government announced they were bringing forward a new living wage of seven pounds 45p an hour and that covers 160,000 people in scotland working for central government agencies and the national health service. it's part of what we call the social wish the contract between the people of scotland and their government. he gives people the opportunity to provide for themselves and their families trade we should have the aspiration to achieve a living wage for all workers not just those under the responsibility of government and yesterday nick explain how would we'll encourage the private sector to move towards a living

wage and today i can announced the following steps in achieving that mission. around 70,000 people in scotland received minimum wage. the minimum wage has failed to increase in almost a decade and every single year since the recession started in 2008 that minimum wages fail to keep up with the cost of living. if elected on independence the scottish government would establish a work commissioned. the central duty of that commission would be to set a minimum wage guaranteed. i can announced today that this guarantee will ensure the minimum wage rises at the very least in line with inflation. let us pledge that never again will the lowest paid in scotland failed to keep up with the cost of living. [applause]

the lowest paid scots would be a total 675 pounds better off. friends work should pay and we must ensure that work pays by raising the skills of labor not by reducing people to despair. [applause] as we move into this crucial year for scotland we accept and indeed we relish the challenge to give the information necessary to -- i can therefore announce the scottish government will publish the white paper of independence on tuesday the 26th of november.

[applause] above all the white paper she'll shall do two things. first it will spell out the platform that will establish for scotland between the referendum next year and the first elections for an independent scottish parliament in the spring of 2016. independence is not at its heart this party or this administration or this first minister but fundamental democratic choice for scotland the people's right to choose a government of their own. [applause] secondly the white paper will set out a vision for scotland.

a scotland that we seek. we seek a country with a written constitution protecting not just the liberties for the people but enunciating the rights of the citizen. we seek a country where we make work pay not by humiliating those with disabilities but by strengthening the human wage. weiss seek a country where key public services remain in public hands. we seek a country where business prospers and the public is protected against the abuse of monopoly power and we seek a country with the right to health and education based on human need and ability not on the size of your wallet. we seek a country which understands its contribution to culture and creativity as part of an international framework. and we seek a country in which judged on how useful it can be to the rest