know, when you talk about that wool you had in the court system, there are creative ways of having judges think about social problems and helping to resolve social problems in ways that do not involve locking everybody up. now there are new drug courts focus on rehabilitation. i think we also have to start thinking about alternatives to arrests. there has been so much focus on incarceration, appropriately, because it is so harsh expensive, and counterproductive to public safety, but now we are starting to understand that arrest is also a point at which people enter the system and start having outcomes that are hard to reverse. once you get the arrest record, it makes it hard to get a job. my mom always says why don't these guys just go work admit donald -- go work at mcdonald's. it is often difficult to get a minimum wage job, if you have

not just a criminal record, but an arrest record. it is easy to find just looking at the internet. one of the ways that congress is focusing, state lawmakers are focusing on having opportunities for people making mistakes is this ban the box campaign, where employers are not allowed to initially ask you about your arrest. if you committed a crime that is relevant to your work -- obviously if you have committed a violent crime or sex crime, we do not want you working around children if you have not been successfully rehabilitated, so there are common sense campaigns, but the idea is to give folks that have made mistakes a second chance. host: park storm tweets in the

percentage of blacks is way out of proportion with the total percentage of blacks in the u.s. population. jim says i am not buying that white folks buying dope get a pass but black folks selling dope get life in prison. larry is calling in from indiana. mary, go ahead. caller: mr. butler, let's start for a beginning. suckers work for a levy. in the u.s. justice system, i worked in illinois and i retired from a u.s. penitentiary in 2003. they are not inmates. they call themselves convicts. you insult them when you call them an inmate. they want to be called convicts. they start at an early age whether it is dope were any other crime. the arrest record starts when they are 12 years old. by the time they get to the criminal justice system they have a rap sheet of nine or 10

arrests before they get sent to the penitentiary. it is not the first-time dope dealer that gets sent to the penitentiary. you are misleading the public when you say that on the program. they already have a cumulative arrest record before the judge comes down with a gavel and sends them to a penitentiary. host: larry, do you think the drug laws should be used back a little bit -- eased back a little bit? caller: eased back -- it depends. they do not send people that have been arrested for the first time to a u.s. penitentiary. someone is misleading the public. host: thank you. we got your point. paul butler? guest: i do not think i said or anybody said that if you get a first possession offense you go to a federal prison, but it sounds like larry retired before

we experienced in the 1980's and the 1990's this massive increase in the prison population, again based on these laws that went into effect in the early-19 90's. maybe he is not up to date with who actually is incarcerated now. again, the reason why people like the koch brothers are on board with having to reduce our prison population is because the folks that are serving time now, again, some of them, about half are there for violent crimes in federal prison, and there is not a lot of debate about whether they should be there. that is an area that we need to investigate, but with nonviolent drug offenders, about 50% of folks in the federal system, i think, again, no one wants to coddle criminals. everyone is in favor of public safety, but it turns out that

too much incarceration is what we call criminal genic, which means when you reach this tipping point where to many people are locked up, that makes crime go up, not down. again, the reason why 32 states have reduced their prison population at the same time that they have reduced their crime rates is not because they want to coddle criminals. it is because they understand that reducing incarceration is a way of being smart on crime. it is a way of making the streets safer for everybody. host: international rates of incarceration -- imprisonment rate -- you can see the u.s. leads with 716 followed by rwanda russia, and on down with

some other countries including china at 121. ted in flushing, new york. independent line. caller: yes, good morning. i am really surprised that we are leading rwanda and other countries. let's be honest with this -- the guy before it was saying that a 12-year-old boy will be jailed and then jailed again. i am really shocked -- how come we allow a 12-year-old kid to be locked up? i do not understand that. now i see hope. the hope is there is bipartisan support. the educational -- the justice system has to be reformed. it should be an educational system, where young people have a chance to be in a society. the united states is setting a bad example for the world. we're talking about human rights

violations in china, and china says you are the worst offenders, putting disproportionately black people in jail. host: thank you, sir. paul butler? guest: i totally agree with the caller's comments about the juvenile justice system. that is an area we have to turn our attention to. we have people who are children that are treated like adults. we know, just in based on what we know about -- just based on what we know about psychology, science, brain development, that these are children that need rehabilitation, that need the kind of mental health services that they do not get in prison, but oftentimes now, again, children get locked up in some jurisdictions because we have been so punitive. we really do have to be

especially concerned about how we treat children because that says something about where we are as a civilized society. peter, i appreciate that you are putting up these charts with how the prison population has been going up and up and up, but it is important for folks to know that if you put up a chart about the crime rate, the crime rate has actually been going down and down. the rate of violent crime especially has dramatically increased since the 1970's, and that is good news for everybody. the fact that violent crime is going down all over the country number one suggest that police strategy might have something to do with it, but there are so many different police strategies in the 50 states that it is hard to say that things like stop and frisk, zero-tolerance policies are responsible. worldwide, interestingly enough,

crime has been going down, not just in the states, but all over the world. host: this tweet -- can you guessed address the high crime rate in chicago? guest: yeah. i know that is a special concern for president obama because he spent a lot of time in chicago and he calls that home now. me, too. chicago is my home. when i look at what is going on there and the rates of violent crime -- first of all, we should say there is some lightly encouraging news. violent crime in chicago has not increased at the same rate it has increased in most of the other parts of the country, but violent crime is going down there. the police are being smarter about the kinds of tactics that they use. i think they are still using stop and frisk, for example, way too much.

in new york we hav that that does not really help communities feel invested in the justice system. the way we catch the bad guys like murderous -- murderers and rapists, is not the way you see on tv, chasing them, but the way police solve serious homicides and rates is by talking to people -- rapes is by talking to people, getting them to tell them what happened, and the only way people are willing to talk to cops is if they feel the system is legitimate, that they are there to serve and protect them. one of the things police officers in chicago are doing is becoming more invested in their immunity. a lot of those issues are structural. i grew up in 6 -- community.

i -- a lot of those issues are structural. i grew up in chicago. my mother sent me to saint ignatius prep. if i had gone to the public school in the neighborhood that i grew up in in the south side of chicago, i do not know if i would be here talking to you today, peter, as a law professor. a lot of those folks who have the bad outcomes including some of those people who are committing violent crimes in chicago, they did not have the opportunities that i had and that president obama had. again, when we think about things like getting young women and men to graduate from high school -- when we think about having them learn trades -- you do not have to be a lawyer. i have a lot more time in d.c. finding a good electrician or a good plumber than i do a lawyer.

if some of these folks who feel that they do not want to go to college -- if they could just learn a trade, if they have that opportunity, that is a way to invest in communities to reduce the kinds of violence we've seen in certain areas. host: paul butler is also the author of "let's get free -- a hip-hop history of justice." donna, what is your experience? caller: i work in north carolina. i was one of the first women to work in an all-male institution set up initially as a research institution. hey professor from northwest -- a professor from northwestern university set this program appeared the inmates were up by -- there by choice. they had 30 days to stay with the program. they were required to go to school, take a job. they worked, had family day twice a year.

the idea was they would have to keep their relationship. they wore their personal clothing, they had to watch -- wash their own. my spans is they lived up -- my experience is they lived up to what i expected of them, and they called me mama wagner, to give you an idea of my investigation -- to give you an idea. most of them figured out they can wear their personal clothing, it was the best they were going to have it and they did very well. our recidivism -- most of them came back only because they were drug addicts and alcoholics. most of the inmates were there for gross stupidity. very few were psychopaths or other things. most of them just did not seem to think through what they were

doing and i would suggest a career change because i was time them what to do and it fitted not like that they could think about more positive things. i think i should be reinstated, and administrated institution and there should be one in every region and every inmate should come through there for five years in order to prepare to return home. they have associate degrees in optics there. shaw university offers a degree in business there. everything is there. they are not doing it now. they have ruined it, but they can reinstated. people like jesse helms and rush limbaugh did a lot of damage by trying to tell the bureau how to run institutions. it does not even have a gym in it. that is unacceptable. i had 365 days to dream up something to do and only had 40 hours a week to get it undone.

i loved working for the bureau. it was a wonderful institution. we trained three regional directors, to directors of the bureau of prison. call kathy hawk. mike started off as an officer and retired as a warden. i think it is a fantastic opportunity for people to work with the bureau. i am very proud. host: that is donna in woodlief north carolina. professor bollard. guest: donna, first of all congratulations on breaking the gas -- glass ceiling and i'm an advocate for having more women in law enforcement. when you look at the problems we see now in places like ferguson and staten island, women are more -- less likely to shoot and arman -- unarmed person than male tops. sometimes i feel if we had a lot more women law enforcement

officers we would not see the level of problems that we see now. your story about giving these people who are locked up opportunities to, rather than sit around all day and watch tv, opportunities to get a ged get an associates degree, learn a trade, not just a story evidence-based. we know that works. you are absolutely right that a lot of the rhetoric that we hear from people from -- like rush limbaugh and other conservatives, that is not evidence-based. a lot of the get tough -- put them under the jail -- that does not work. that does not make communities safer because once again, these folks come home. 95% -- i keep saying that

because it is so important to realize. all of these, 2.5 million people that are locked up now, more than 2 million one day will be back with us on the streets, in our neighborhood, and we want them to have the opportunity when they are incarcerated to learn, just like donna said, to learn a new trade. host: in 1985, 6 $.7 billion worth spent on corrections. 2013 26.5. caller: this is not what i talked about but since you brought up i will address it quickly -- it is not necessarily that we need more women, because the kind of woman that would shoot unnecessarily is the same kind of man, it is not gender, it is a mental tap. it is not that we need more women, but more certain types of people.

what i called about is the bulk of the problem is the six-month to three-year sentences people are getting and that is primarily because of the flexibility fake hero judges and prosecutors are being given that they should not have are two examples i would like you to address. i do not believe it is rational anyone should be locked up for any on of time if they were not paying money to a court for supposedly the well-being of a child i have a false promise of child support. it will not give productive value to that child's life for that person to be sitting in a lockup. some people are victim of paternity fraud. -- victims of paternity fraud. separate from that, i think legislators should be setting up a system so that if someone is locked up for something they should not be locked up for the police have no evidence, and the

judges were consciously complacent, the system should be set up where they should have to go to jail and go to jeff for a certain amount of time where they are in correctional programs and not just sitting there in the joint doing time. i want you to address the first thing i brought up that you should not be sending people to jail for long periods of time because it is not want to pay money to a court, but they were paying for the well-being of their child. host: todd. paul butler? guest: i am with you, todd. i think a lot of misdemeanors should probably not be dealt with through the criminal justice system. there was a frightening article in the "new york times" this week about public urination, and it turns out thousands of people in new york city get arrested for peeing in the street, if you

excuse the expression, and that is a problem. a lot of folks agreed it is a public nuisance, people should not do that, and there needs to be some disincentive, but the problem is one folks get arrested for that, they, a lot of times, spent time in a holding cell and they have an arrest record, and people plead guilty because they get caught red-handed, and and up with his criminal record. when we think about the collateral consequences that come from having a criminal record, and especially having a conviction, are those equivalent to the problem of public urination? so, again, being creative about ways to deal with social problems other than by locking people up, and the example that you used about if a man is not

making his child support payments, that is a problem. again, we need people, obviously, to be responsible parents, but it does seem kind of counterproductive to put them in a ce for all -- cell for a period of time because obviously than they are not going to be a responsible parent the same way they would be if they were on the street, and clearly they are not going to make child support payments if they are locked up. again, a great example of something that everyone would agree is a problem. again, folks need to take care of their kids, but is locking them up the best way of addressing that problem? a lot of the criminal justice policies, i think a lot of your callers are keying in on.

a lot of the policies are not evidence-based, fact-based. a lot of the policy is driven by emotion. when i think about some of these deadbeat dads -- it makes me kind of mad, too. i know some children whose fathers need to be more involved in their lives financially, so i get the emotion, but again, when i think about how to fix the problem, i wanted to be evidence-based, i wanted to focus on something that works, and for lots of these misdemeanors, there are better ways of addressing the problems than locking folks up or even giving them criminal records. host: edward perkins tweets in not just about the disproportionate number of arrests, drugs to be legalized and regulate. jamie in maryland. caller: hello, i want to address a couple of points and i will move through them quickly. first, hats off to the

president, especially when it comes to compassion. to speak on subjects that, you know, to be so passionate about things that are not necessarily an issue of yours, i think that takes great strength. i like what he said when he said -- what he said about redemption. i think that was a key point. i wanted to also say that a lot of folks that find themselves in prison, when you look at the man, you have to understand the story to understand him. a lot of these folks are the kids of addicts and that kind of thing. if you are the child of an addict, you are exposed to things everybody else is not. sometimes you found ways to take care of yourself because maybe that person, that parent was not there, and that kind of thing.

so, you have a whole different expands altogether that other folks do not understand. another thing i wanted to say -- host: jamie, before you do, can you share your experience with the criminal justice system? caller: yeah. i am 36 years old now, but when i was about 19 or 20 years old myself and another german got into an argument -- gentleman got into an argument. the argument escalated and we both acted in a way we should not have. host: what does that mean? what does that mean? caller: well, it came to a violent situation. host: guns fists? caller: we are talking guns. host: was somebody killed? caller: no, nobody was killed. caller:i was hit, but it was the fault of my own. host: how has that affected you?

did you end up going to prison or jail for a while? caller: i was one in a million that caught a fair break and the reason i say that is because what i did deserved punishment and it just so happened that i had a very good family and i was also in a decent position myself to hire a good lawyer. that lawyer cost me $20,000. i am 20 years old and i had to come up with $20,000 for a lawyer and i was able to make that happen, but a lot of people cannot do that. if i had a public defender or something like that, i would still be in jail right now. that was 15 years ago. the end result was the judge -- he was not really -- his reputation was not one of a lenient one. so i was definitely scared, but that judge gave me a huge break and the only reason he did was

he saw i had no previous arrest record, had never been locked up for anything. he said i will take this as you made a mistake, but if you ever come in front of me again, i promise you i will make you pay for it. host: how has that arrest affected your life in your professional career? caller: i will get to it. when i was in high school i was able to obtain my cdo license. i was a truck driver. i really had a good job before that arrest happened. so, it has affected me because it has been difficult for me -- i wanted to be a pilot and because of the arrest record, even if i went to school to be a pilot, there would be nobody i would be able to fly four. host: are you driving a truck today, jamie?

jamie got cut off. i'm sorry about that. paul butler, and response to what jamie had to say? guest: yeah, so, it sounds like he got a second chance and he really benefited from that second chance and it is important to know that it sounds like he is a very responsible contributing member of society and he was implicated in a crime of violence. i understand why now there is a lot of focus on nonviolent offenders, because that is, kind of, low-hanging fruit in the sense that it is very obvious period that locking up those people for long -- locking up those people for periods of time. it is important to think about people that have been locked up for round offenses, ways to help

them get second chances and become responsible, returning citizens. in a i want to give a shout out to my public defenders. they have some of the most difficult jobs in our society. so many of them are just the hardest working and must responsible citizens, lawyers good human beings that you could meet. i get calls sometimes from people whose kid might be -- have a case standing. they say, is there anyway you can find someone to help me represent them because now it's just a public defender? lots of times, the public defender is the best person to represent you because they have so much experience representing people with crimes like the ca ller was accused of. the problem is not public defenders.

it's that we do not send enough money in defense in our system. i know a lot of times you talk about unfunded mandates on states are required to do something, but they are not given the resources to do that. defense of poor people is a classic example -- remember that story case of gideon versus wainwright? in the united states of america, if you are being prosecuted by the awesome power of the government, then you need somebody on your side. the bill of rights requires that you have a lawyer to represent you. if you are poor, then the government has to provide that lawyer. sweeping grant announcement from the supreme court about the bill of rights and its relationship to an accused person. but who pays for that lawyer?

states do. states have not been very forthcoming with the money that they have been allocating to that very pressing need. a lot of times when people are represented by appointed attorneys, those attorneys have way too many cases to focus on anyone in a way that does anything to do with justice. it depends on the jurisdiction. if you are in a place like the district of columbia you're lucky to be represented by the public defender. in the bronx, new york neighborhood defenders san francisco has a great defender, you really have to think about where you are. public defense lawyers, people who are public interest lawyers who represent an accused person, those are some of my heroes. host: paul butler we appreciate

you coming on and talking about this issue. if congress brings it up next week, the "washington journal" a look at it again.

an hour.

mr. cook: our guest today is former pennsylvania senator and current presidential candidate rick santorum. his last visit with us was in july of 2005. we are glad to have him back. he was born in virginia but moved to pennsylvania when he was 7. he's a graduate of penn state. earned a m.b.a. at the university of pittsburgh, and has a law degree from dickenson law school. in 1990 at the age 32, our guest ran for the u.s. house, defeat an incumbent who outspent him almost 3-is. in 1994 at age 36, he beat another incumbent for u.s. senate seat and won a second term before being defeated in 2006. he's currently making his second run for the white house having been the last conservative challenger standing against mitt

romney in 2012. the senator and his wife are the parents of seven children. thus ends the biographical portion of the program. now on to the ever so compelling recitation of ground rules. as always we are on the record here. pleas no live blogging or tweeting. in short no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway to give us time to listen to what our guest says. there is no embargo when the session ends. to help you curve that selfie urge, we'll email several pictures of the session to all reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends. and as regular attendees know, if you like to ask a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal and i'll call on as many reporters we can in the time we have with the senator this morning. we'll start off by offering our guest the opportunity to make some opening comments and then questions around the table. with that thanks again for doing this, sir. appreciate it. senator santorum: thank you-all for coming this morning. appreciate it. look forward to your questions actually not. i'll do my best.

i would just say that i think this is as someone who ran four years ago, this is a very different election. for me one that's a much more satisfying election as a candidate because this is an election, at least from my perspective, the republican primary, four years ago the election was about who was the conservative alternative to mitt romney. the entire justification as a candidate was establishing yourself as a foil for what seemed to be the establishment pick for the nomination. this is a race that's obviously a wide open race. it's a real opportunity to go out and talk about the important things that confront this country, important issues that confront this country and why -- what your vision is and why you believe you're the best person to be able to tackle the problems that america's facing right now.

so, in that respect it's a more interesting race for me as a candidate because it's a race about issues, it's a race not about who your opponent is. i think if you look at most of my comments, it's certainly in the last few months, i don't talk about my -- other folks in the race. to me it's not relevant. there are so many faces out there that paying any attention to any one is -- isn't necessarily important from the standpoint of the success. i don't think it's relevant. what the voters are trying to figure out right now is who is on my list. i don't think they are looking for any help from the candidates in trying to take people off their list. i think they are looking to see

what candidates are potential viable presidential candidates going forward. i look at that as a real opportunity to make the case as to why we are -- we are the candidate that is -- has the right solutions for the country right now and has the best possibility of success in the general leaks. that's really the focal point of our campaign so far and will continue to be. that's exciting for me because it's about how we can help the country, what we can do to make things better for -- to the people who are struggling in this country, and why winning is not as important as winning something that's worth winning. it's not just about winning the election. it's actually winning for this country in a way that we haven't seen, in my opinion, in several

elections. i'm excited about the message we are delivering. that's why i announced from a factory floor in western pennsylvania. i believe that message. looking at the people in america today who are not succeeding. looking at the middle of this country that needs to be filled with policies and values that are going to make america a much more top to bottom successful country going forward. i think we have some very unique ideas in that regard that separate us from the pack. that's when i travel around the country we do a lot of manufacturing events. we'll be in identify way probably 19 out of the next 33 days we'll be in iowa. we'll be doing a manufacturing event almost every single day we are there because that to me is one of the real big keys of help making america stronger from top to bottom.

making things and creating the jobs and opportunities that are available to people who are not succeeding through a resurgence in that sector of the economy. on the other side, we have the national security which has become really important issue in this election which was not at all important four years ago. again we believe that our message is different. we have experience that nobody else in the field has. an a track record that certainly distinguishes ourself from hillary clinton, but the experience to go up against a hillary clinton. that's an important part of this race is how -- what are you going to do for america? but also how you juxtapose that with the likely democratic nominee. i think a lot of fronts we match up very well because we have matched up well in the past. i think i'm the only person in the field that has any real

experience having gone toe to toe with the clinton machine and hillary clinton specifically when i was in the united states senate. i think that -- if experience matters, i think there's a lot of folks who believe now experience is more important than it once thought it was, that recommends me to the electorate as time goes on. i'll be happy to stop there. mr. cook: one or two and move around the table. let me ask you about fundraising. as you know jeb bush has raised an enormous amount of money, $114 million. and the estimates are that cruz raised and allies raised $51 and rubio $45 million. cruz's folks say that you don't need to be the most well funded but that you need to have the money to go up against jeb bush. conservative does not need to

raise the most amount of money to go up against jeb bush. conservative does not need to raise the most amount of money to beat an establishment candidate. we are a raw funded conservative candidate and the only one. can you give us an update on what you have raised and your folks have raised and what your response is to the argument from folks like cruz's staff that you need to be the best funded conservative to really have a place at the table? senator santorum: look at it this year. four years ago, four years ago we raised less than $2 million. and we started raising money april 1 of 2011. we raised less than $2 million heading into iowa. and we won the iowa caucuses. after that point we raised about $20 million. i think if you go back and look at how -- campaign itself, how fundraising was going, we were at times outraising romney.

it was towards the end of the campaign romney was laying off staff because they were not -- in some respects keeping up with us with the fundraising pace we had. i would make the argument that money is important, but what's money for? money is to get you votes. so the most important thing is how effective are you in getting votes that you need to be able to win the election? and clearly four years ago we ran a race with being outspent four and five to one and still were able -- primarily four and

five to one because of the super p.a.c. situation. i don't think this time around you're going to see that same type of dynamic. four years ago we had an establishment candidate that everyone backed and including the vast majority of super p.a.c. donors. i just don't think that there is that candidate this time. i understand that jeb bush has raised a lot of money, but there's a lot of other money out there on the sidelines that i think is willing and able and will support a conservative candidate as that conservative candidate emerges in february and march of next year. i think the question is, how much money do you need to win iowa and be competitive after that? and my opinion, it's not new the money being talked about. mr. cook: you didn't give us a number. do you want to give us a number? senator santorum: we'll report the number at the appropriate time.

mr. cook: trying. let me ask you one other, fox news has said to be on stage at their debate in cleveland you have to place in the top 10, as you know. the average five most recent national polls as conducted by major nationally recognized organizations, an analysis by the cnn polling director recently released has you 11th. how damaging is that to your bid to overtake the other conservatives in the field who are likely to be there? ben carson, mike huckabee, ted cruz. what's the strategy to get you on the stage? senator santorum: i don't pay a whole lot of attention to things that go on this far ahead of a an actual vote. go back four years ago and we finished fourth in the iowa straw poll. most people would have thought that was not a particularly good thing to happen. it turned out not to be particularly relevant at all. so a lot of things have happened six, seven months before an election sound big at the time but in the interim don't turn out to be very consequential. i think there are pluses and minuses of the way that the fox has set up their debate and cnn has set up their debate.

we'll participate in whatever their black box -- black box way of determining what polls at what point in time. i think -- i have been very, very vocal about this. i think staff and national media plays such a -- an important role early in and who is not it's undermining

the advantage, if i was an r.n.c. chairman, it's undermining the process that was established by the r.n.c. to let the states and voters make that call as opposed to the national media. particularly using a yardstick that historically has had no relationship to who the actual winner of any of these primaries are going to be which is months before the election, 1% or 2% national polls two weeks before the iowa caucuses, i was at 4%. i won the iowa caucuses. so given that benchmark, i wouldn't have been included in they were going to eliminate 2/3 of the people in the debate prior to the iowa caucuses, i wouldn't have been included. yet i was on the way to winning the caucuses. to me it's a miscarriage of -- by r.n.c. to agree to something like that. having said that, we'll play by the rules. i don't think our game plan hasn't changed much. we are probably going to do a little bit more television radio this month than we otherwise would have, but i think i just told you, i'll going to spend 20 of the next --

19 of the next 33 days in iowa. my game plan hasn't changed much. we are going to continue to work and make sure we win the iowa caucuses. one of the things do i know from four years ago, the people in iowa don't pay attention what guess on here in washington, d.c., they decide for themselves who they pick as president. mr. cook: way in the back from cbs. first question. [inaudible] senator santorum: he's the democratic party. he's the base. he's the heart left. hillary clinton is moving to the hard left that's who the democratic party has become and their activists and downers. they are the party of the left. it's not a far cry to say the party to the left would be very welcoming of someone who is a self-identified socialist. mr. cook: next to "the washington post.” >> national security which is an area you have -- economic inequality.

you're still talking about issues like abortion. do you worry about alienating new people that you might need in the general election? senator santorum: i'm a conservative across the board who speaks on all the issues national security to economic to moral and cultural issues. i don't see them as indistinguishable. they fall together. if you don't have a strong family structure in america, i have said this many times, as the american family breaks down, the ability for limited government becomes less and best possible. when the government has to fill in for the problems that come with the breakdown of the family and in those communities, then the ideal of the -- of economic conservatives in the republican party that want to talk about these or even members of the public, why do i need to focus on, if you look at every study that's been done by the left and right, i always talk on the campaign trail, i talk about the two books on the campaign trail, "coming apart.”

and one called "our kids" read both our books. the principle problem, and every study done on income economy the principle reason income equality is as intractable problem as it is today is first and foremost the breakdown of the nuclear family. so you can say, well, you still talk about those things. i talk about those things because they are relevant to the

debate on how we get our vibrant middle of america, and how we create better opportunities for children to be successful. so i think it is important to understand that none of these things are sort of issues unto themselves but they interrelate. national security, if we don't have a vibrant middle of america, the desire of america to engage in the world is -- you saw the story in the recession you saw republicans pulling back saying we don't -- we can't afford to do this anymore. we have to cut the military. that became a very -- even within the republican party. why? because people were really hurting. when people are hurting at home, the last thing they want to do we need to be going off and doing these things arne the world. all of these things interrelate. to me the foundational element is make sure we have strong families.

we have strong families that are together and raising children. i think it was said it's more important for parents to read to their children the first four years of life than to pay for four years of college. i don't think that message is out there. that the message from either party about how important these -- this public policy issue is of reknitting the american family. mr. cook: nicole from "roll call.” [inaudible] senator santorum: obviously i talk about the importance of targeting voters who have been left behind by this economy in the last 10 years.

so i announced that on the factory floor. you look wages have been stagnant. you look at medium income has declined in the last seven years.

party that have is the recession but it hasn't recovered. and you see this stagnation that has really made this a much more important issue that i think republicans are -- have been and continue, many not all, many continue to ignore at our peril. so i think this idea of laying out a vision for how pro-growth economics can translate into improved job opportunities for the 74% of americans age 25 to 65 who don't have a college degree and we are going to provide a pathway for a more stable optimistic future for them, that's a -- that is a -- an issue that was not as clearly as important 10 years ago as it is today. and going forward. the prospects don't look a whole lot brighter. so i think the focus on that for me is nothing new. if you look at my track record when i was in the senate, we were very -- always interested in these issues, but it now becomes more front and center. obviously the cultural issues i talked about, big changes in the culture in the last 10 years but to me it's just a continuation of what we have seen for the past 30 years. we have seen a continual break down of the understanding of marriage and family, and it didn't start with the current marriage debate. it started a long time ago. it started 40, 50 years ago. we have seen the impact of that with ever increasing out-of-wedlock birth rates. ever increasing absentee fathers. ever increasing levels of poverty. as you read the book, it's pretty jarring when you read that book is to see that the changes in communities and opportunities are available for young people growing up in broken families and poor communities. there just isn't the network of support there. so all of those things are big cultural shifts that require the republican party to begin to address them. i think we are stuck. i think the republican party is

stuck. i wrote this book many of you know last year called "blue collar conservative.” one of the chapters in the book is a chapter saying a rising tide lifts all boats. unless your boat has a hole in it. i think republicans still use the rising tide lifts all boats, which is a john f. kennedy line, nevertheless we use that line all the time and we don't recognize there are a lot of people say, the tide has risen. i'm in deeper water and i'll bailing faster, and i feel like i'm sinking as the tide is going up. we have to have specific policies oriented toward how we are going to help those who are sinking. and we don't. we talk -- we still talk in macroeconomic terms. we still are unwilling to carve out public policy that addresses particular microeconomic categories or people.

because that's -- that's tinkering with the -- it's not purist. i would just make the argument that that's a losing strategy on economics. and there are -- from my perspective, if we are going to win this election and if we are going to create a win for the american public who are hurting, we have to have a different message than what we have been saying for the past 20 years. mr. cook: we are going next to john of the b.b.c. and herb jackson, jonathan easily, todd dana, and miles. [inaudible] senator santorum: i welcome the spotlight. the manner which he's done it is

donald trump, not rick santorum. there will be a differentiation between the way we talk about this issue and the substance of what we talk about, because i saw donald over the weekend talking about how he wants more and easier legal immigration. he wants more people coming in and make it easier for people to come in. i have been very different approach to that. while i think it's important he's focused the issue of immigration which i do believe is important. particularly for the workers i have been talking about.

i said in my announcement, we have seen 35 million people come to this country in the last 20 years. that's over 10% of the population of this country have come to this country combined legal and illegal to live here. we have more people living in this country who weren't born here than any time in the history of our country. we are approaching the highest percentage of folks not born in this country living here. that can all be good. that's not necessarily -- it's not necessarily bad, let me put it that way. but we have to analyze what the impact is on the very people i

was talking about. what's the impact on those struggling the most in america? and to do that is not xenophobic, it's simply a rational policy discussion we should be able to have in this country without being called various names that are not particularly appetizing in the public. i always refer back to the last immigration commission that was constituted under president clinton run by barbara jordan. she said immigration policy is first and foremost in the national interest. we need to have a discussion of what's in the national interest. i think certainly a part of that is how american workers are doing under this system. i make the argument when you look at flatline wages now for those 74% of american workers who don't have a college degree, you look at what their wages have been, look at their incomes over the last 20 years during this period of record, record immigration, not even close to any 20-year period, that includes the great wave. so i think it's rational and responsible for public policy discussion as to what the impact is on the people who are most affected. and i would make the argument that the people most affected are those workers that i talked about and they are not doing well under this. we have an obligation to take a step back and say what is the -- in the best interest of the american workers, by the way both native born and those who came to this country legally over the last 20 years and before that, and see what we -- policy going forward will address those issues. that's why i've suggested not just what most republicans talk about, which is border security and tracking our visa overstays and talking about e-verify and the importance of using e-verify and find folks who are here illegally, but what we are going to do about legal immigration, particularly the large amount of unskilled labor that we are bringing into this country legally to compete.

i use this number, again, age 25 to 65, you look at since 2000 there have been about 6 1/2 what percentage of those net new jobs are held by people who are in this country who were not born in this country? the answer is all of them. there are fewer native born americans working today than there was in the year 2000. and there's 17 million more native americans in the work force. and so you can make the argument that, immigration is a good thing for america, but if you look at stagnant wages, if you look at the fact that immigrants primarily are taking all the net

new jobs and what the impact is on those wages and benefits, i think it's pretty clear what's happening. so to suggest as i have that we have to make some changes to that, i think it's simply a topic that needs to be front and center and talked about, and i think most americans would like to have this conversation without being made to feel by many that they're somehow anti-immigrants. i don't think you're anti-immigrant if you, as i have suggested, still are after the proposal that i have laid out there, and i did a couple months ago, called for a 25% reduction in legal immigrants in this country, we'd still be at the highest level we have been at prior to this 20-year period. mr. cook: herb jackson at the end. >> senator, i have a transportation question. the tunnel amtrak uses under the

hudson river is more than 100 years old. juan 20 years it's going to fail they say because of damage from hurricane sandy. the existing car tunnels and bridges are at capacity. that's going to have a major impact in the northeast. congress so far not addressed. if you were president would you support building a new tunnel? senator santorum: i have taken the approach on transportation that the federal government should do less not more on transportation. in fact i'm supported -- i supported proposal that would dramatically reduce the gas tax and put the federal government back in the position of simply doing what we should be doing, which is dealing with interstate commerce and movement of, which of course includes movement of people, from an interstate capacity. doesn't necessarily mean just interstates class definition, it could be u.s. highways and other major interstate movers of goods and people. and that we reduce the gas tax to the level that can maintain and in fact improve that system. and then cap the tax at that amount and send the rest back to

basically cut it and let the states deal with all these other issues that are more local in nature. we have not traditionally, obviously, with passenger trains, we have supported amtrak very generously over the years. as you know the federal government has traditionally not gotten involved with rail construction. certainly freight rail construction we have stayed away from. we have done some passenger rail construction. so i guess my gut reaction would be that's not -- that getting involved with a project like that would be one of those gray areas that i would look at because it is interstate movement, but it would have a high bar in order to cross to do that kind of project.

mr. cook: jonathan from "the hill.” >> senator, you said at the outset this has been in some ways a more satisfying campaign for you. is it also frustrating you at all? it doesn't appear a lot of the base you had in 2012 has transferred over in support in 2016. is it frustrating to be in some ways starting from scratch? senator santorum: i remind everybody that prior to the iowa caucuses we were at 2% or 4%. a lot of support we got came late. and it was after looking at all the candidates they made the decision. that's one of the things -- i certainly know about iowans as we call around and we are talking to our supporters. we are getting a fair number of them to say, yeah. they are still with us. which is pretty encouraging. but a lot of them are saying you know what, we really like you, but, as i have said -- there's a lot of new models on the show room. we are taking a look at everybody. i'm not surprised at all. there are a lot of new models. there are a lot, as i said

public, a loft good people out there that people are going to take a look at. i have always felt confident that four years ago i felt this way when i was starting from scratch. i feel very much the same way this time in spite of all the new models. i think this model is a good reliable model that people will come back to and say you know what, all that glitters is not gold. and i'm using the example of donald trump. trump's the best guy on immigration. then you read, he may be tough on the border, but on a lot of other immigration issues he's not very good -- not considered a conservative on those things. that just takes time and my -- one of my concerns and i explained about this at the time, didn't complain commented, the lack of debates means that really most americans have -- most primary voters have no idea where most candidates stand on the issues. they don't. it's all just -- i always wish these national surveys would start without saying who you're going to vote for and list the candidates, who are you going to vote for? and just -- can you name all the candidates running for president? i guarantee you that most people couldn't name more than two or

three candidates. and so it's just -- all these questions are not relevant. because it is so early and people aren't paying that much attention clearly in iowa, what i do know, they make their decision the last month or so. not to say they won't be for someone today, but as i find out just because they are for someone today doesn't mean they'll vote for someone later on. i'd rather not be their favorite now. i would rather be their favorite when it matters. mr. cook: bloomberg.

>> two-part question. going back to september of 2005 when you were in the senate, knowing everything you know, would you still confirm john roberts? and secondly, where are you on the constitutional amendment following the decision on same-sex marriage? should it define marriage as a man and woman on a federal level or let the states do it? senator santorum: knowing what i know now would i confirm john roberts? look, i confirmed john roberts because he was he had a good strong track record of someone who paid attention to what the constitution said and followed it. everyone's entitled to a mistake every now and then and he's made one mistake twice. and that's disappointing, but he's also written a lot of really good and strong opinions. i wish i could say that every --

everybody i ever voted for on anything not just judges but for elections didn't disappoint me at some point in time, but that's just not the world. by and large he's been a solid supreme court justice. looking at the best case scenario of his opinions, the opinion was one that was deferential to the congress which even though i'm running for president, i like presidents and courts that defer to congress because that's the body that our constitution wanted to rest most of the power in washington, d.c. on. i'm not happy with the decision. looking at it sort of the other way, i can get myself to not be as upset about it as i might be. as far as a constitutional amendment, i co-authored and pushed for the vote on that amendment way back in 2004. i believe we need a national standard for marriage. i don't think you can have a standard one state to another what marriage is. so i would continue to support an effort to redefine -- define marriage the way it was defined for 4,000 years of human history.

>> that sets you apart from governor cruz and governor walker? senator santorum: i think that's a mistake. i argued that 10 years ago when others wanted to do that 10 years ago. you can't have a hodgepodge of marriage. the reason -- one of the reasons the court decided the way decided because they recognize you can't have different marriage laws in different states. just creates tomb too much confusion out there for -- on a variety of different levels. mr. cook: todd gilman from "dallas morning news.” >> there are those on the other side of the cusp.

do you see any evidence of anything -- if [inaudible] senator santorum: i'm going to do media appearances. i don't spend money this far out in the campaign. >> do you see evidence that anyone in the field is gaming the system to try to get into the top 10? is there any way to juice your numbers? senator santorum: the people who set the game up have the biggest influence on who gets in because it's going to who they put on the network and give air time. they control in some respects the ability to put their thumb on the scale to give someone -- not that we're doing it. i am certainly not a media -- don't watch a lot of television. i have no idea who -- what they are doing. but they certainly have the

ability to do that but -- if they decided, for example, they wanted rick santorum to be in the debates, it would be helpful to them for some reason to have -- they could say we are going to put santorum on every single day and have our anchors talk about this guy, stories. the point is they can. i'm not saying they are or will. but they certainly can have an impact because what's driving national numbers is? it's news coverage. that's what drives national numbers. if you folks had written as many stories about jeb bush as you did lindsey graham, i guess jeb bush's numbers wouldn't be where they are today.

>> is it a death spiral. if you don't make the debate, you or anybody else, you're probably not going to make the next debate or next one after that? senator santorum: here's what i found. go back and look at -- look at every election cycle. people go up, people go down. that debate to be a very interesting time. and could prove to be a wonderful opportunity for some and as we saw in the past it could be a disaster for others. it could shoot their campaign right between the eyes. and so you just -- the idea that being in the debate or not there were debates i wasn't in last time. and it had it had absolutely no impact on the campaign. i think something this early on with all the things that are going to happen between now and caucus day i just don't think it's going to be that important. mr. cook: dana milbank from the “post.” >> the trump effect.

you got this widely fragmented field and it appears in order to break out you got to say something outrageous. and you're here very nicely talking about robert putnam which is terrific. but it's not outrageous. do you think you can do basically what you did last time, sort of plodding along?

are the rules going to be fundamentally different this time and it's going to be all about money and all about being provocative to get the media attention? can you be plotting and get to the finish line? senator santorum: i hope so. that's -- we haven't really changed how -- who i am as candidate and what i believe in. and i don't think iowa has changed. i know everybody likes to look at all the things going on in the national media. but in the end, iowa's going to cut this field down dramatically much more than whether you attend the debate or not. if you can go there and connect as we did in the past, and be successful, we are going to be one of a handful of guys or gals i should say who are going to be the nominee of the republican party. i would say i'm the tortoise and the hare. slow and steady wins the race.

we are not going to -- i don't see any real opportunities for us over the next six months to break out. i didn't see it six years ago we were going to break out. what i believe in is that when people get down to the serious business of judging who they want to be their president, not who they are enjoying for the moment, not who gets them excited and gets them to cheer for something that they feel frustrated that no one's speaking for them, but in the end who they want to sit beyond the resolute desk, i think it's a different calculation. we went through 20 debates, 18 debates, you think of a memorable line that rick santorum said? no. that's not -- i give good solid answers that are knowledgeable that show a clear vision for what i want to accomplish. and what's best for this country. and on a variety of different topics and eventually people came around and said i think that guy can be president. and it coalesced. we had a lot of really wonderful people you may say there are just better fecks out there. they are stronger. that may be the case. but one of the things i learned is you don't know that this far out. what i do know is that we passed

that test before and i think we can pass that test again. mr. cook: miles. >> you began this session talking about income inequality and your belief that -- what you read about it being primarily caused by a break down in the family. senator santorum: i said that's what the studies have shown the principal reason. there are others. education, problems with education. mentioned the manufacturing sector of the economy has been dramatically reduced in this country and therefore opportunities for a lot of noncollege educated people to get good-paying jobs and rise has been compromised. there's a lot of factors. that is certainly one of them. >> is a conservative view of limited government, can government do anything about re-establishing the american family? and income equality? or are those things not the business of the government? senator santorum: i would say

the answer is yes and no. when i say yes and no, there are things that the political system and public policy can do to effect the family. on a policy side, i use the example of when i was campaigning in wisconsin four years ago now congressman grossman shared with me a study when he was state senator showed that if you are a single mother with two kids, and you're making $15,000 a year in the state of wisconsin, you are eligible for $38,500 in welfare medicines. if you got married you would lose those benefits. and so what the government had done all with the intent of trying to help people, was create a barrier for marriage among lower income single moms. 0and that's why you see for the first time in the history of our country a majority of kids will be raised at homes without a father in the home at some point in time. number two, majority of kids born in america out of wedlock are born with fathers living in the home but not married.

there are several reasons for that. one the marriage debate i would make the argument has now separated the idea of children for marriage. marriage is no longer about children. i think that's part of it. part of it is because of government programs that particularly for low income individuals. government programs make it economically not viable to get married because you have to be making $50,000 to $60,000 a year which is above median income in america, that person you're going to marry, to net $38,000 in basically tax-free benefits. the government has done things all with the intent -- i don't describe ill intent. with the intent of trying to help. what they have done is create a barrier to marriage in america

among lower income individuals. that's number one. we have to look at public policy changes to stop that disincentive. it's damaging for mothers and children in particular. that's one idea of public policy. shift over to what is another important area which is the power of the government to -- the bully pulpit. using the power of the presidency or the government to convenient -- convene a discussion and movement to try to do something in america about this problem. the president uses his bully pulpit power for many things but no more than climate change. he's constantly out there -- we passed a bill on climate change. no. but if things happen in this country over the last six years on climate change. yes. why? because the president has been out there talking to the business community and the churches and our schools and all of these institutions out there that have a huge impact on what goes on in america. the president has driven this issue so they have taken up this cause. and implemented and done things to promote this idea. imagine a president who said the most important issue right now is restoring the nuclear family in america. is what can we do in your business to help? i was at a business in tennessee, the reason i mention

that is in my book 10 years called "it takes a family" i wrote about chattanooga and a program there called first things first. it's the first time a community at large came together because they had very high rates of divorce, out-of-wedlock birth, single motherhood, etc., so they decided as a community to do something about it. government didn't pass the law. but the churches and schools and businesses and the civic and community organizations came together in this group called first things first, and implemented a variety of different things to try to get the community to bring families together. i was at a business there a couple months ago and i just said, just curious, because.

do you guys do anything for your families? and, i did not even have to explain. everybody we have in our company, we give them a free dave ramsey course so they can -- we give one of our benefits is marriage counseling. so they went through all these things they do to support the nuclear family in chattanooga. why? because they made a conscious effort that the schools now talk about marriage and the importance of marriage and what marriage is and why it's important to be married, to have children. i would suspect most schools in america don't do that, right? they talk about the importance of fathers. they talk about, in fact condoms but they don't talk about what it's about to be a responsible father and a responsible family. all those things can be done without any government programs because if we identify and, you know, dana's talking about the putnam book. i don't know how many read the putnam book.

when you read that book you can't walk away and say, we can continue this in america. you can't. there's no effort on the part of the federal government. nothing by this president. nothing. he has poverty summit. when you talk about using the power of the presidency to try to change and start a debate in this country of what we can do so the situations that are occurring every single day in america because children are abandoned by a system that is not focused on kids, i think we can make some real changes. >> we've got about 10 minutes left. we'll try to get in three more questions. paul. paul: senator, four years -- senator santorum: what if i filibuster? paul: senator, four years ago your family played a big role in

your campaign. you're a dad of seven. how have things changed in four years? is it easier, harder? how do you -- how do you stay dad? senator santorum: it's hard. seven kids, going through those teenage years and everything it's -- there's challenges out there. i'll be honest with you. i feel -- first, the biggest issue, if you recall four years ago, was our daughter bella and the health problems that she had. i'm just -- we're just real excited she's doing better she has ever done and has been for about three years. after the campaign, we -- you know, we realized we had to look at some things because she was just getting -- there was a pattern of her getting sick,

very seriously sick. and she had that pattern but it was getting worse. so anyway, we dug into some things and we actually found a therapy that's in our book. she takes something to boost her immune system and it's just changed her life. she's doing great. and so i -- if she was in the same position as she was four years ago, i wouldn't be sitting here. but she is doing great. and so we feel very, very comfortable on that front. we have six other kids. as i said, they're going through their teenage and college years. i don't need to say any more than that. but it's a -- last time around, it was a family enterprise. and in spite of the travel and other things, it actually in many respects brought the family even closer together.

and everybody is excited about it. you know, our kids are -- it's just fighting them off as to who goes to what trip because everybody wants to go and be out on the trail and do things. it's sort of like the family business in some respects. you want to go to the store and participate, but it's -- so i feel very good. our family is well prepared to do it. not to say we don't have our issues like every other family but if we didn't then you should be worried about it. paul: you would be taking a pay cut if you win, right? senator santorum: yeah. it's pretty good job. >> mr. rappaport from "the new york times. >> talk about taking on the clinton machine. is it more or let formidable candidate than president obama? senator santorum: yeah, we took on a machine in 1994 when i ran against harris and we were you believe against carville and begala and bill and hillary came to pennsylvania with great frequency to campaign against us. you know, pennsylvania's not the

reddest of states. we felt we went up against their best and brightest. health care was the big issue back in 1994. the guy i was running against was the senate sponsor. in fact, you go back and look at your political reason, kids in 1991 really ushered bill clinton into the 1992 campaign because cargo and -- carville made health care the issue of the 1991 special election and went down to little rock, basically took their experiences in pennsylvania in 1991 and applied it to the race in 1992 and the rest is history. they had a lot riding on pennsylvania in 1994. let me assure you, they threw the kitchen sink at us and we were able to survive. i remind people in 2000, we won by five points in 2000 in the state that bush lost by four.

we were the only conservative to win in a state that bush lost. i think we have a good track record of being able to overcome big election odds. i beat two incumbents. i represented a 60% democratic seat and a 70% democratic seat in my first few terms in the congress. i think we have a pretty good track record. when we get to a general election we can be pretty effective. i feel like hillary clinton is in some respects tougher than barack obama. in some ways. in some ways easier. i think hillary's going to have a harder time galvanizing her base. i think she probably has a little bit more of an opportunity to appeal outside of

her base. the president last time obviously lost independents and moderates, and that would have been an opportunity for me, at least i believe, we could have done better there. i think she'll -- she'll have pluses and minuses, but, again we have a track record. not just gone up against the political team but also went up against her in the united states senate on more than one occasion and i think we did pretty well when we did that. so if you're looking at debate performances and how well you can stack up and be effective, i think we have some pretty good evidence that we'll do very well. >> phil, last question. senator santorum: i kept trying to finish up. phil: are we going to see mrs. santorum this time? last time she had a pretty tough go at it. what is her role in the santorum 2.0 is going to be? senator santorum: the least disruptive model possible. particularly with our daughter who's doing well but she is still 24/7 care. if care is not there, then we got to hire someone to be there. that becomes economically challenging, let's just put it that way.

so i'll be honest with you. a big part of it is just family economics for us to have nursing care when karen's not home 24 hours a day gets expensive and it's not covered by insurance or anything like that. so part of it is driven by just the family realities of having a disabled child that requires 24/7 care and the other reality is we have six other kids. they're going through teenage years and sort of good to have a parent around. that's happening. we had some experiences about that in the last year or so. and so karen and i is a division of labor, if you will. while i think karen does an amazing job on the campaign trail, is a huge asset, the most important asset that we have is our family. and while she maybe a great asset on the campaign, she is

the indispensible asset at home and that's the way we'll view all sorts of opportunities on the campaign. >> thanks for doing this. senator santorum: you bet it. >> appreciate it. senator santorum: appreciate it. what painless. somewhat. >> i'm glad. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] \[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]