house the bulls in which they could then partly meet by byte offset in an effort to set up the system is going on right now. the montréal protocol regulates substances, one of the substances that was developed to not deplete the ozone level, so to be a substitute. they don't deplete the ozone level, but they are huge greenhouse gas agent. the small but growing by leaps and bounds because it is an industrial chemical that is used in air conditioning and all sorts of cool aid and sony developing world it is just sort of skyrocketing. ..

>> advise and consent in the senate for those agreements that are written instructions in such a way as to need that. we don't think that this is one of those. so, but there would still -- even if it's not a ratification process, there are instruments of accession that have to be deposited and prepared and things like that. so there's, there are formalities for everybody, and some countries will have, some countries have all different kinds of processes.

>> but you don't, since the document has been finished, you haven't heard any worries that there's anything in it that provides an opening for somebody who thinks it does require -- >> oh, i don't think there's anything in it that suggests that the document is one that requires advice and consent by the senate, but that doesn't mean that we won't hear and i won't hear from friends on the hill. [laughter] quite possible. but, you know, i've testified any number of times over the years, so we'll just see what happens. we haven't heard anything yet. >> okay. so in our -- [inaudible] there is a phrase in our index, the u.s. one -- >> yeah. >> -- there is a phrase where it says we do not intend to use international market mechanisms. >> uh-huh. >> can you talk to us about why we said that, what it means,

does it mean price? and why it's, why it's there. >> yeah. so that reference is to the notion of buying credits from another, from other countries, right? and that wasn't at all a statement that we are against that or that we wouldn't ever do that. the part of the notion with respect to clarity and understanding of indcs and transparency that we have advocated and we wanted to, you know, put our money where our mouth is, is to set forth key elements of our kind of regulatory and policy structure that we intend to use, that our target for 2025 is built on. all we were saying there is our

target for 2025, 26, 28% reductions below 2005 levels is not built upon a bunch of assumptions about how we're going to buy 4% of that using credits from other countries. but having said that, there was actually tremendous progress made, i think surprising progress made, with respect to the markets issue in the agreement. so the agreement now concludes the, endorses the use, voluntary use by countries of market mechanisms and calls for the setting up of a new thing which i think most people would understand to be, to involve a system where you can, in fact, buy offsets, buy credits from other countries. there was such a thing under kyoto, it's called the clean development mechanism, and i

think at least many people see the notion of a new market mechanism as being the kind of the son of cdm. so markets are very much in the agreement, are very much more in the agreement than i think most people thought was going to happen, and we were an active player in those negotiations and very supportive of them. >> were we also part of the leadership in bringing up the 1.5 degree goal? tell us about where we stand on -- >> yeah. well, so we supported the ultimate language that was, that was agreed to which is, essentially, to pursue -- it's not, it's not stated as it's a goal. i'm forgetting the exact words now, but the goal is well below two degrees and then kind of making, in essence, best efforts to pursue the 1.5 notion. that was really the drivers of

the 1.5 degree goal were the island states really, who, you know, they're the ones who they always punch way above their weight in these negotiations because not all of them, but any number of them are kind kind ofn the front lines of risk. and many of them felt that two degrees already isn't good enough for them. so we had to, it wasn't just us, i mean, i think whether it was the u.s., the e.u., the big, developing countries or others, people did not want to actually turn the core goal into 1.5. but on the other hand, wanted to include 1.5 as a goal that we should be striving towards. so i would not say that we were, we weren't the leader of that, but we were supportive of it.

>> who are the countries, which are the countries that most concern you looking forward long term? i can remember arriving in rio to see the saudi text of the, with the entire text of the framework convention in brackets. and i know that they're still a concern. russia has been difficult to deal with on in this issue for many years, but i don't want to answer the question. where are the big challenges, do you think? >> yeah. so, well, i mean, there's two different ways to look at that question. if you mean in the context of the ongoing international negotiations, that's kind of the -- >> well, i guess i mean both -- >> okay. >> -- the negotiations and the real world, on the ground. >> right, okay. so with respect to negotiations, you know, the short answer is i don't think we know yet. i think that going into those

negotiations there were various groupings of countries who were at least sort of from our point of view and from the point of view of any number of countries who were seeking a certain kind of agreement were challenging. but we have an agreement that was met with kind of extraordinarily broad claim, i mean, even in the hall you had any -- most countries expressing a great deal of satisfaction with it in the world outside the hall. you had, i think, quite remarkable sense that this was, this is a very strong outcome. so, now, will some of the traditionally challenging countries go into the negotiations on guidelines and guidances and various things like that and be challenging?

undoubtedly. i mean, i would expect that that would be true and not because they're doing anything wrong, but because they're looking at their own interests as they see it. but a lot, a lot, a lot is now embedded in an agreement that's agreed to. so there's only so far that a country can -- you can't really move off of the agreement in the context of the guideline-type discussions. you know, with respect to the real world, you know, i think that the important thing is going to be for all, i mean, many countries in the world don't contribute very much to the totals of greenhouse gas emissions yet. is so for a great many countries, getting them gradually on a path to lower carbon forms of development is what you're looking at.

obviously, there are big, big players; china, the biggest among them and the most consequential. but, you know, india and brazil and indonesia and others are obviously big players as, you know, are we and other developedded countries. so i think -- developed countries. so i think that there is obviously a gulf between what you agree to and what you pledge to do in an agreement and executing it. so it's going to be -- and it's going to be challenging. it's going to be very challenging to do the things that were agreed to. so i think it's going to be hugely important that now at national levels and even subnational, but the national level is still the most fundamental unit, that laws and regulations and policies get put in place that will produce the

results that were agreed to. and not just hit the number for 2025 or 2030, but get the entire economy of whichever country we're talking about on a path that is going to allow for steeper and steeper reductions over time. so i think that's going to be, you know, that's going to be the name of the game. >> so let's talk about the name of the game here. are we going to be able to do this without putting a price on carbon? >> is the "this" the 2025 target? >> no, it's more how you defined it, which is a longer term -- >> longer term. i think, so short answer for 2025 i think the answer is, yes. again, there's all kinds of

regulations that, in effect, put implicit prices on carbon. but in a longer term way, i think that that's a really important step. and the president tried to go there back in 2009 and '10 with the cap and trade legislation and got halfway there but not all the way. you know, there are, there are large numbers of people in the kind of think tank and academic communities on both sides of the aisle who look at this issue, and, i mean, it's kind of a no-brainer that we ought to be going in that direction. and so i think longer range, yeah, i would think that we would have have to go in that direction. >> i was stunned to read the other day of this, in this record-breaking year for automobile sales or for vehicle sales last year, 70% were trucks

and suvs in the united states and only 30% were actually cars. >> yeah. >> and so it seems as toe we are condemned -- as though we are condemned to a cyclical process. and those cars will stay on the road for 12, 15 years. >> yeah. i mean, it is also true that there's, you know, that there are standards that we have put in place both for heavy duty and light duty vehicles, and the light duty standards take us from, will take us from 27 to 54 between, i think, 2012 and 2023, something like that. and the next round of heavy duty are coming up. and those will drive, you know, will drive change as well. >> yeah. a long list of questions, but we should now turn to the members, and let me ask, let me remind everybody we're on the record. please give your name and your

affiliation and please stick to one question and please wait for the microphone. go ahead. >> thank you. adam sailor with the world bank. over the last couple of years, we've had these two parallel tracks with negotiations around the 2030 agenda, the enrollment goals and the climate change agreement in paris. and at times it's felt like those two tracks were competing with each other, other times complementing each other. the climate agreement got more agreement and fanfare than the sdg agreement did even those these are very much overlapping agendas. what do you see as the optimal relationship between them so we can learn lessons from each and use both to increase political will to support kind of the broader agenda around sustainable development?

>> should i take that? >> yes, please. >> so they're obviously mutually reinforcing. they're different -- those two exercises are quite different in their nature. i think maybe most importantly because in the climate world you're talking about countries making specific pledges to do specific things generally backed up by, either by existing or by, you know, soon-to-be national regulations, legislation, so forth. whereas in the sdg world they're kind of broader brush goals, nobody's individually promising to do anything which doesn't mean they're not important because i think the original millenium development goal's been very important and a mover of action in a variety of ways.

so so i think they're important but quite different in that respect. i think that action on the climate front will certainly be relevant to the sdg world. there are some -- there's not a big climate goal per se, but climate is built boo a number of the -- into a number of the development goals. so i think action as we drive down emissions, that's going to help realize some of what is called for in the sdg world, and just the question whether it will react back the ore -- the other way, i'm not sure. >> the gentleman right in front. yeah, go ahead. and then i'll come forward. >> thank you. will davis with g.w. easel yacht

school. jessica touched on the political situation here in the u.s., and because this is not a treaty that you're submitting to the senate for ratification, do you have any small smidgenover concern that a successive administration, perhaps less committed to climate action as the obama administration, could walk back from some of our agreements, or have we crossed a threshold politically if not legally where this is going to be a u.s. bipartisan approach to climate change going forward? thank you. >> well, that's an interesting question. i don't know that we have -- [laughter] i would like it to be the case that we are in the land of climate being a postpartisan issue in the united states. i think that would be a little bit aggressive as an estimation of what's going on here. it is, by the way, actually that way in europe. i mean, if you watch the swing back and forth between, you know, labour and conservatives or social democrats and

conservatives, they don't change climate policy very much. so it pretty much is a postpartisan issue there. here it obviously isn't the if you look at the hill. i think that my own view is that there is an inexorable process that is going on right now in the public. i mean, if you look, if you track public opinion, it is trending more and more toward belief in the reality of climate change, belief that we should be acting to contain it, and i think -- again, my own sense which i think is backed up by numbers -- is that this is also, these are also numbers that are generationally relevant and influenced so that as with each passing years, those numbers are going to increase because, you know, for generational reasons. in terms of whether i have

concern, look, i think that it would be, it would surprise me a lot to see any new president actually try to walk all the way back out of what we've agreed to. you should know that whether an agreement is, has been, you know, gone through advice and consent, whether it's entirely legally binding or partly legally binding as this one is, countries can still pull out. you know, that's always the right of a country. i just think that this is a problem that is upon us. it is not just not going away, but it's getting worse. stepping outside of the land of political rhetoric when people have to get down to the business of governing, that it's not -- i don't see a new president from whichever party having that inclination. and i think it would be an

unbelievably consequential in the downside, in the downward sense thing for any president to do vis-a-vis global opinion and u.s. foreign policy interests. i mean, i think this is -- it would be a hugely disruptive thing to do with respect to u.s. standing in terms of broader foreign policy. so i really don't think that's going to happen. and i, you know, i hear all the rhetoric. i don't think that's going to happen. >> okay, this -- in the blue shirt right there. >> hi. my name is talia schmidt, i'm a student at william and mary, and i was hoping you could clarify one point for me, but i also have a question. the clarification was you said the point that in the first year we need to have 55 countries join on, and i was wondering if you could specify what you meant

by that since the indcs are specific for each country, and it doesn't seem to me like there's any -- or, like, what is that common ground that all the countries need to do? because it seems like each country kind of has their own pathway that they're following, and there's no specific thing that every single country has to do. and then the second, my actual question is the ratcheting up every five years that we have to do. other than the carbon markets, what other kind of things do you have in mind that we can do since it seems like we've put on the table what we have for this to meet our 2025 goals. >> okay, so let me just clarify a couple of things. those are good questions. i didn't say that we have to have 55 countries join in the first year, i said that the thresholdings for the -- thresholds for the agreement to enter into force, that's a legal term for the agreement to become, you know, to be in effect is that 55 countries need

to join comprising 55% or more of global emissions whether that's in 2016, '17, '18, whatever it might be. none of that is in any way inconsistent with the notion that each country decides on its own what it's going to do. it's just that -- so joining the agreement means you're going to be part of this overall agreement. part of this agreement includes you putting in your nationally-determined contribution and saying this is what we're going to do. you decide that. but are you part of the new conference of parties to this new agreement, or are you not? and so that's what joining is about. are you going to be part of making the rules, are you going to be part of being in this system or not? and so joining is what countries need to do. they don't need to do it in the first year, but i would expect to see pretty forward-leaning

posture from the u.s. in that regard. with respect to the ratcheting up, so again let me just is so i'm not misunderstood at all, there is a, there are five-year cycles built into this agreement. there are some countries -- at this point not that many. the united states is one, brazil also, i think the marshall islands there's a handful who decided on doing a five-year target. in other words, 2025 on the premise of the agreement starts, at least this was the premise of the agreement, start in 2020. you have elected 2025 targets, and then we would have a target for 2030, 2035 and so forth. many countries took targets to 2030, so a ten-year period from 2020 to 2030. after that i think many of those countries actually will start doing them each five years, but we'll see. there is a five-year cycle though which will say countries need to, each five years, either

put in a new target because, you know, you've, your target period has run out and you need to do a new one, or even if you're not at that point where your target has run out because you've got a longer, you've got a ten-year target, you need to revisit your target, take another look at it, look in terms of the context of ongoing science and technology developments and decide whether you're going to ratchet that up even in the middle or you're going to reconfirm that you're going to stay where you are. so that was all agreed to. in terms of what are we actually going to do after 2025 to produce further reductions, you know, i don't really have any comment about that yet. there's -- >> i ask you, todd, there is a, some concern that the official inventories may understate the problem especially in terms of oil.

if it turns out that that's the case and more needs to be cut in order to get to two degrees, for example, what would be the process within the structure of the agreement to do that? what would be the intersection of ipcc science and the paris agreement? >> well, so i think that the intersection is going to come most directly in this process that i've referred to as the global stock take. so the global stock take the first official -- well, not official, the first sort of proto stock take in 2018 where the assumption of everybody in this association was that the new agreement would start in 2020. the way it was actually written,@possible to start a little -- it's possible to start a little bit before that. but for simplicity, assume it's starting in 2020.

there's an initial 2018 stock take which, again, would be before the agreement started, and then 2023 and every five years after that. that is meant to take into account the latest science from the ipcc, and, you know, all sorts of other factors and to then give the world, to give all the countries in the agreement a sense of where the, where the trajectories really need to go. now, this doesn't mean we're going to get there right away. we didn't get there this time right away,al hoe we made -- although we made progress. >> right. >> that's, basically, the answer to your question. >> okay. there's two right here at the table, and then i will go to the back. >> thank you. paula stern -- >> hi, paula. >> hi, todd. congratulations. my question goes to china who played, as you said, a very important role diplomatically. and china's, in my words,

schizophrenia between market forces and state-run orders and power. they're making the shift in response to the climate change challenges, but how does the united states -- now, this is u.s. interest and u.s. market-based firms in which we develop innovation towards remediation or other alternatives, renewables -- how do they get an adequate voice in the bilateral relationship between the u.s. and china when it comes to china's adoption of new technologies? >> and you've got an asymmetry between the state-owned

enterprises and the lack of a full market forces in china, and yet we have in the united states our innovators, our entrepreneurs who tend to be smaller. how do they get a, how does the u.s. government make up for that asymmetry when it comes to the market? >> todd, let me take one more. you had a question as well, right? >> hi, todd. lisa friedman from climate -- [inaudible] i wonder if you could reflect a little bit about how you think this is going to play in the elections. we saw a flurry of responses to paris after, after it was announced, but, you know, were you surprised to not hear it come up in the republican debates last night? you know, where -- how big an issue do you think this is going to be in the campaign? also if i could clarify, is the united states going to be signing this in new york on the 22nd, or is the u.s. planning something different or earlier?

>> so to paula's question, the first question, i don't have any particular learning to provide with respect to how u.s. innovators are going to -- i don't know that they're going to have a voice, i don't think they will have a voice in terms of chinese policy. there's, obviously, i mean, china's a big, big market, and the ways the countries, the companies get into that market and the challenges they have probably a better question to direct to mike froman than to me. but, you know, i think that -- i don't think i can, i don't think i can offer a lot there other than that it's a huge, big market, and they are going to -- i think china really has the bit between their teeth now.

and i think that not just because of climate change, but because of air pollution. and air pollution is not just a broad, deeply serious threat of the kind we should all be worried about, but it is a, it's a potential threat to stability, and they take that very seriously. and you can deal with air pollution in a way that ignores climate change, but i don't think they intend to do that because it would be foolish to do it, it would be much more expensive. and they realize also that they've got this huge climate challenge, and they are getting bigger and bigger. they're already almost tice the size of the united states -- twice the size of the united states in emissions which is a remarkable level of growth. lisa, look, i can't speculate whether this is going to, whether this is going to -- [laughter] whether climate change is going to jump up into the republican

primary, and since i am at the state department now and not in my own political hat and since we're on the record and public, i -- [laughter] more about the election with decaf coffee. [laughter] >> okay. there were a bunch of questions in the back. let's start over in this corner. >> hi. i'm penny starr with cns news. in march of 2015 gallup took a poll, and 55% of americans that responded were concerned about climate change. and also they asked a specific question on the survey, it says do you think that global warming will pose a serious threat to you or your way of life in your lifetime, and in 2015 62% of americans said, no. so i wondered how those numbers jive with what you're saying about increasing numbers of

people believing in climate change and its effects. thank you. >> well, so i don't -- i'm not armed with poll numbers that i've looked at recently, but look, i think that a lot of -- i mean, here and everywhere else questions like this depend enormously on what the nature of the question is and how it's, how it's phrased. i mean, for people to say they don't think it's a serious threat within their lifetime is completely understandable given what, the way the issue is commonly talked about and understood in the press. so i think, i think if we were, you know, if you, if you're an election buff, actually, and you look at real clear politics every day like i do -- [laughter] you'll see that they, that there's a whole bunch of polls

in new hampshire, iowa, this place, that place, and the line that's at the top of real clear is an average of a bunch of polls. so i think if you saw, if we did a sampling of good polling and a range of the way the question is asked, you would see that there is, in fact, a real movement up in the level of u.s. public concern. >> jim, right -- >> hi. john negroponte. i add my congratulations to the president and the secretary and you and others who are involved. paula asked the question about china, my only elaboration that i'd like to hear from you is have they become partners, real negotiating partners in this? it used to be a somewhat adversarial relationship, and it's evolved over time. and are you optimist inabout that going forward -- optimistic about that going forward? my second question is to do with

the levels of assistance that have been promised, the $100 billion fund and whether you care to comment on the prospects for achieving that in our respective legislatures in the countries that have promised these kinds of funds. >> thanks very much. so on the first question, i think china has become a, it is an evolving relationship, and they have become much, much more of a negotiating partner which doesn't mean that we walk into these negotiations hand in hand and on the same side of everything because, you know, that's not true. you know, the hugely consequential joint announcement in november of 2014 between the president, our president and president xi in beijing of our respective targets was, i think, a kind of seminal event. it had been building up over a course of years because, you

know, we were really adversarial in 2009 in copenhagen, and coming out of that experience i think my own read is that the chinese wanted very much to not be as adversarial a posture going forward. and we, you know, i had dozens and dozens of meetings with my counterpart over the years and have a very close relationship with him. i thought that coming out of the joint announcement we would go into the conference in lima, and china would not be at the outset any easier with us than they had been before because, you know, they also have a lot of relationships on the developing countries' side, groupings that they're part of that they try to maintain. that's completely understandable. when things got rough and things

got stalled in lima, you know, my chinese colleague, you know, came in to see me and said why don't we try to do x, y and z using actually, literally, you know, verbatim some of the language we had agreed to in our joint bilateral statement, and that was -- we did that in lima. it broke the deadlock, and we went forward. it didn't happen exactly like that in paris, but they were elements of that. so i think that it's not like they come in holding hands with us like, as if they were the e.u. or somebody on sort of the traditional ally side, but we're talking all the time. i think that we're sizing up where things are and where they need to go and then, you know, there is, i think there was with china -- and in some sense it was, to me, a big driver in trying to do the joint

announcement that we succeeded in doing in 2014 -- china became invested in the success of this negotiation at the point where they had that joint presidential announcement. they were not prepared to have it, you know, fail in a way that they would be blameless for it. they wanted it to you can is seed -- they wanted it to succeed. so in that sense they've become a different kind of negotiating partner, you know, they're not like the e.u., it's different. just for, to be clear, $100 billion is an aggregate, a joint collective commitment by develop canned countries so it's not just us -- developed countries so it's not just us. and it is based on funding from all sources, you know, public, private, the multilateral development banks and so forth. oecd did a report that they released in october of this year

showing that through 2014 we were at about somewhere between 62, $62.5 billion per year being provided north/south of climate financing. there were then in the immediate aftermath of that announcement -- all of this was at the bank fund meetings in lima -- there were a number of additional pledges that were made by, both by individual countries, france, germany, u.k. and others and by some of the mdbs, so the african development bank, the asian development bank, etc. and adding all of those up would probably over the course of a few years get us into the high 80s if not more. so will we make 100 by 2020? i think we will. i think, you know, i think we are going to hit that number. that's certainly the commitment that we've made, and, you know, i think that'll happen.

>> we have time for one more, and i was going in the back, but we'll go in the middle. judithsome -- judith? >> thank you. judith gipper. this is, obviously, long overdue, the world's most important problem, very complicated. is there anything built into the agreement by the u.n., by the u.s., by anybody to have a public policy, public awareness global campaign? because if citizens are well aware of the consequences of global warming, then they'll keep their governments accountable, and there's a lot of things that individual citizens can do to help the problem, to resolve the problem. certainly in the u.s., we're not doing it. >> let me add one question, different but also a broader sort of wrap-up question. having done this enormously

consequential thing of breaking through the kyoto developed country, everybody else firewall , do you see any likely tail, carryover from that to other multilateral, other economic or non negotiations that are underway? >> yeah. so to take judith's question first, you know, there has been some talk, and i think that we don't know yet, i think it would be a very good idea to try to carry forward this pillar, as the french call it, of what they did in paris. so again, think subnational units, private sector, civil society. i think it would be a good thing to institutionalize that as part of the yearly meetings and have

the capacity to try to drive the sort of thing that you're talking about more into the global, into the global framework. i would a little bit disagree, at least partially disagree with what you said with respect to the united states. i think that if you, if you look at what the obama administration has done and the president's done really since particularly -- i mean, there was a bunch of action that was taken in the first term, things like the landmark standards on vehicles and so forth that were quite important. but as a matter of public communications, it wasn't as, it wasn't nearly as big a deal as it became in 2013. in 2013 he comes right off the box and talks about climate change, i think the only issue in terms of policy issue he

talked about in the inaugural. he clearly, i think, had in mind that this was a piece of business that where progress had been made, but it was still very much unfinished. he followed that up with the big speech at georgetown announcing the climate action plan, and then he announced that plan. and he didn't just announce it, but very aggressively from the point of both policy and public communication implemented it. hugely beneficial and productive one year spent at the white house by john podesta who took the lead in really driving that. and i don't, i think all of that -- first of all, this is actually something i should have said earlier. that domestic action was tremendously important internationally. i mean, if you want to look at what's happened internationally, how did we get where we got. the fact that the u.s. had that kind of credibility and that

kind of leverage because of what we were doing at home really, really changed the equation for us. but i also think if you look at -- and, again, i have not looked at these kinds of statistics, but sort of the number of articles mentioning discussions of climate change over the course of the period from the time of the president's climate action plan, i would guess it was, like, way higher than it had been before that. but the most important point is i completely agree with you on the centrality of driving that kind of discussion and communication effort. on, jessica, on your question i don't really have, i don't have an educated -- i've asked myself the same question whether, i mean, the question's fundamentally whether this success in multilateralism can be, can have an impact on other multilateral exercises with

respect to other issues. i don't know. i mean, this has certainly been one of the most difficult nuts to crack, one of the most historically charged, acrimonious, nasty -- [laughter] negotiations that, you know, anywhere on any issue. and not shockingly, by the way. because to deal with climate change, you're affecting your entire economy. so it's not like you've got one particular, isolated problem that you can deal with. it goes to, it goes to the economic fate of countries. whether it'll have, i mean, people like you and john negroponte and others here probably have a better sense than i do, but i think it's a very interesting question. it would be great. i do think if it had failed, the kind of ambition of

multilateralism would have been dealt a blow. the fact that it has succeeded, maybe we can turn it around and say, well, certainly there's some forward impetus. but -- >> well, we have to follow the council's rules and stop. please join me in thanking todd. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up in about an hour and 15 minutes, the heritage foundation hosts a discussion about federal land management in western states. and the potential for transfer of control of these lands back to the states. live coverage starts at noon eastern time. >> this evening at 7 p.m. eastern, michigan governor rick snyder will be delivering his

state of the state address to lawmakers gathered at the state capitol in lansing. live coverage on c-span. >> attorney general loretta lynch will be on capitol hill tomorrow to answer questions about the president's executive actions on guns. she'll be joining other federal officials and gun control advocates on the justice department's implementation of the new rules. live coverage of the senate appropriations subcommittee hearing starting at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span takes you on the road to the white house. best access to the candidates at town hall meetings, speeches, rallies and meet and greets. we're taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone. and always, every campaign event we cover is available on our web site, c-span.org. >> new hampshire holds its presidential primary on february

9th and candidates are making frequent appearances in the granite state. on saturday republican presidential candidate ted cruz held a meet and greet in norfolk at the county strong saloon. here he is arriving for the event. [inaudible conversations] >> good luck, mr. president. >> thank you. god bless you. [inaudible conversations] [applause] >> three votes right here. three votes. >> thank you. god bless you. >> thank you for coming, sir.

>> it's a pleasure, sir. [laughter] >> i want to be on tv! [inaudible conversations] >> thank you for being here. thanks a lot. >> hi, nice to meet you. good luck. >> thank you very much. thank you. >> hi, nice to meet you. >> good to see you. welcome. how you doing? [inaudible conversations] >> good luck, sir. >> thank you. great to see you guys. >> good to meet you.

>> immigration. >> you've got my word. >> good man. [inaudible] >> please do. >> yeah. >> take care. god bless you. >> good luck. >> thanks. >> big supporter. thank you very much, keep on going. [cheers and applause] >> we want ted! we want ted! [applause] >> good man, ted. [inaudible conversations]

>> we want somebody with attitude. >> that's right. [inaudible conversations] >> we want ted, ted, ted. we want ted, ted, ted. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> we want ted, ted, ted. we want ted, ted, ted. we want ted, ted, ted. we want ted, ted, ted. we want ted -- >> new york loves you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, we know that we cannot once again listen to campaign conservatives who become elected liberals. we need someone who doesn't just talk the talk, but walks the walk. we need a proven conservative, we need ted cruz. thank you. [cheers and applause]

>> well, thank you so very, very much. god bless the great state of new hampshire. [cheers and applause] i am thrilled to be up here, i'm thrilled to be with so many friends. thank you for coming out, thank you for joining us. how about those patriots? [cheers and applause] you guys are playing some football. >> yeah! >> and by the way, for the record, tom brady was framed. [laughter] [cheers and applause] i'm not willing to pander on much -- [laughter] but on that, tom brady was framed, and i have it on good authority that hillary clinton was responsible. [laughter] [cheers and applause] why else do you think she destroyed her e-mails? [laughter]

you know, i appreciate y'all coming out tonight. >> amen! >> we are at a time when our country's in crisis. we're bankrupting our kids and grandkids. our constitutional rights are under assault each and every day. and america's receded from leadership in the world. and yet i'm here tonight with a word of hope and encouragement. all across the state of new hampshire, all across this country people are waking up. there is an awakening, and there is a spirit of revival that is sweeping the this country. so i want to ask everyone here to look forward. look forward to january 2017. [applause]

if i am elected president, let me tell you what i intend to do in the first day on office. the first thing i intend to do is rescind every single illegal and unconstitutional executive action taken by this president. [cheers and applause] you know, just a week ago president obama signed yet more illegal executive actions, this time trying to undermine our second amendment right to keep and bear arms. well, he may have a phone and he may have a pen, but you live by the pen, you die by the pen. and as you rightly noted, my pen has got an eraser. [applause] the second thing i intend to do on the first day in office --

>> throw the bum out? >> oh, he'll already be out. and by the way, if anyone wants to take up a collection to pay for his greens fees every day for the next year -- [laughter] i actually think he does far less damage on the golf course. [laughter] but the second thing i intend to do is instruct the u.s. department of justice to open an investigation into planned parenthood and these horrible videos. [applause] the administration of justice should be blind to party or ideology. the only fidelity at the department of justice should be to the laws and the constitution of the united states. [applause] the third thing i intend to do

on the first day in office is instruct the department of justice and the irs and every other federal agency that the persecution of religious liberty ends today. [applause] that means that every serviceman and woman has the right to seek out and worship god almighty with all of their hearts, minds and souls, and their superior officer has nothing to say about it. [applause] the fourth thing i intend to do on the first day in office is rip to shreds this catastrophic iranian nuclear deal. [cheers and applause] now listen, today all of us are

celebrating the return of five americans from iran. let me say, praise god, and in particular for the return of pastor said abedini. [applause] millions of believers across the planet have been praying for pastor said. i've gotten to know his wife who i spoke to briefly yesterday as she and her two little kids have lived without their husband for three years. he was sentenced to eight years in prison in iran for the crime of preaching the gospel. so we are thrilled that he's coming home, we're thrilled the other americans are coming home. but at the same time, let me tell you this deal that was cut releasing seven terrorists who have been helping iran acquire nuclear technology, promising not to prosecute another 14

terrorists, that's 21 terrorists altogether, it sadly continues the pattern we've seen from this administration. we saw it with the bowe bergdahl deal, an individual now facing court-martial. and yet the administration released five senior taliban terrorists in exchange for him. and this is a dangerous signal to the world. it is a sign, it is frankly an incentive for every bad actor on earth to go and kidnap an american. ..

>> and every one of us was horrified last week to seek an american sailors on their knees with their hands on your head, captured by the iranians. i'll tell you, that image will sum up in one picture the absolute failures of the obama-clinton foreign policy. i'll tell you this. if i'm elected president, american sailors will never be on their knees to a foreign power.

[applause] the fifth thing i intend to do on the first day in office is begin the process of moving the american embassy in israel to jerusalem, the once and eternal capital of israel. [applause] now, that's day one. [laughter] >> there are 365 days in a year, four years any presidential term, in four years in a second term. [applause] every one of those days is going to be spent defending the

constitution. as jfk would say, with a bigger -- with vigor. [applause] >> by the end of eight years there will be a whole lot of newspaper reporters and editors and journalists who have checked themselves into therapy. [laughter] in the days that follow, i will go to congress, and we will review every word of obamacare. [applause] -- repeal. we will pass commonsense health care reform that makes health insurance personal and portable and affordable, and keeps government from getting in between us and our doctors. [applause]

in the days that follow, i will instruct the u.s. department of education that common core ends today. [applause] in the days that follow, we will finally, finally finally secure the borders and in sanctuary cities. [applause] there are 360 sanctuary jurisdictions in this country. every one of them is going to find their federal taxpayer dollars cut off. [applause] and as you rightly noted, we will build a wall.

[applause] and i've got somebody in mind to build it. [laughter] in the days that follow, we will rebuild the military. [applause] and we will honor the sacred commitment to every soldier sailor airman and marine. [applause] for seven years our fighting men and women have labored under commander-in-chief who doesn't support them, who doesn't have their backs, undermines them, this incident into combat with rules of engagement that have both arms tied behind their back. in january 2017 that will end.

[applause] we will fundamentally reform the va to protect every veteran's right to choose his or her doctor. [applause] and we will protect every service man and woman's constitutional right to keep and bear arms. [applause] so the next time a jihadists walks into a recruiting center in chattanooga, he's going to encounter the business and of fire arms wielded by a dozen marines. [applause] we will have a

commander-in-chief that stands up and says to the world, we will defeat radical islamic terrorism. [applause] we will have a president willing to utter the words radical islamic terrorism. [applause] and we will not weaken, we will not degrade. we will utterly and completely destroy isis. [applause] and in the days that follow we will take on the epa and the cfpb, and the alphabet soup of federal agencies that have descended like locusts on farmers and ranchers and small

businesses all across this country. [applause] you know, i'm reminded of a few years ago. i was out in west texas, asked folks there. i said, what's the difference between regulators and the locusts? i said, well, the thing is you can't use pesticide on the regulators. this old west texas farmer, he leaned back, said, what about? [laughter] and in the days that follow i will go to congress and we will pass fundamental tax reform. we will pass a simple flat tax. [applause]

where every american can fill out your taxes on a postcard. and when we do that, we should abolish the irs. [applause] now, some of y'all might be thinking, all of this makes sense to me. it's basic common sense. live -- you know, those words, bernie and commonsense. [laughter] it's sort of like matter and antimatter. i think if they come into contact the universe ceases to exist. but -- [inaudible] >> that's not bad. i can't say that, but you can. look, simple principles live within your means.

don't bankrupt our kids and grandkids. follow the constitution. [applause] but can it be done? can we do it? you know, scripture tells us there's nothing new under the sun. i think where we are today it is very, very much like the late 1970s, the jimmy carter administration. same failed economic policy, same feckless and naïve foreign policy. in fact, the very same countries, russia and iran openly laughing at and mocking the president of the united states. now, why does that analogy give me so much hope and optimism? because we know how that story ended. all across this country millions

of men and women rose up and became the reagan revolution. [applause] and it didn't, from washington. washington despised ronald reagan. by the way, if you see a candidate who washington embraces, run and hide. it came from the american people and it turned this country around. we went to misery and stagnation and malaise to booming economic growth to millions lifted out of poverty into prosperity and the american dream. we went from our hostages languishing in iran to winning the cold war, and caring the berlin wall to the ground. -- terrain. wyoming's optimistic of? because the same thing is happening again.

all across this country people are waking up. when we launched this campaign 10 months ago, the "new york times" hobley opined, cruz cannot win. because the washington elites despise him. i kind of thought that was the whole point of the campaign. [applause] listen, if you think things in washington are doing great, do we need to keep headed the same basic direction just have to fiddle around the edges, then i ain't your guy. on the other hand, if you think washington is fundamentally broken, that there is a bipartisan corruption of career politicians in both parties, that get in bed with the lobbyists and special interests and grow and grow and grow

government and we need to take power out of washington and back to we the people, that is what this campaign is all about. [applause] let me close with this. you know, for all of us here, freedom is not some abstract concept we read about in the schoolbook. that's exactly right. freedom is real. it's personal. it's in our lives, our families. you know, for me i think about my dad. my dad was born and raised in cuba, and he fought in the cuban revolution growing up. [inaudible] [laughter] >> when he was a teenager it was

imprisoned and tortured. he found himself on the floor of a cuban jail cell covered in mud and blood and grind. his nose was broken. his teeth were shattered out of his mouth. and remembers thinking, i don't have any kids. nobody depends on a. it doesn't matter if i live for if i die. and yet, thankfully, god had different plans for my father. he was released from the jail cell, and in 1957 my father fled to america. when he got here, he was 18 years old, couldn't speak english. had nothing, at $100 sewn into his underwear. i actually don't advise carrying money in your underwear. [laughter] and he got a job washing dishes, made 50 cents an hour. and he worked seven days a week,

and he paid his way through school. and he and my mom went on to start a small business together. so i grew up in texas as the son of two small business owners. i saw the ups and downs, the triumphs and challenges of running a small family business. today my dad is a pastor. he travels the country preaching the gospel. [applause] when i was a kid, my dad used to say it to me over and over again, when we faced oppression in cuba, i had a place to flee to. if we lose our freedom here, where do we go? that is what all of us are here tonight. because we are not willing to go quietly into the night. we are not prepared to give up

on our kids and grandkids. [applause] and i tell you this. if we stand together, if we defend freedom, if we defend the constitution, if we defend the judeo-christian values that built this country, if we stand as we the people, then we will bring back, we will restore that last best hope for mankind, that shining city on a hill that is the united states of america. [applause]

>> [chanting] >> well, with that i am happy to answer or dodge any question you like. yes, sir. >> why did you apologize saying that liberals in new york city -- [inaudible] >> okay, so very good question. so after i commented about new york values, which you know was actually have donald described and explained his own views. he said it was the product of new york values. it was interesting, our friends in the media, seems like they let their hair on fire. we were very confused. what are these new york values

of which you speak? i would say, in the rest of america people exactly what that means. but, but then this would've outrage allowed and louder, and donald trump and hillary clinton and andrew cuomo and mayor bill de blasio all demanded an apology. so i said all right, i am happy to apologize. i apologize to all the millions of new yorkers who have been abandoned i left wing liberal politicians. [applause] you know, i apologize to all the working men and women in new york who would like to provide for the families that mayor andrew cuomo has been racking so they don't get the high-paying jobs that are just south in the state of pennsylvania. i apologize to all the pro-life and pro-marriage and pro-second amendment new yorkers who andrew cuomo said, quote, have no place in the state of new york.

and i apologize to all the african-american schoolchildren the mayor de blasio qaeda throughout of their charter schools that were providing them lifelines towards the american dream. and, finally, i apologized to all the copts and firefighters and 9/11 heroes who are forced to stay up and turned their back on mayor de blasio because over and over and over again -- cops -- he sides with the looters and criminals instead of the brave men and women in blue. [applause] now, i'm not sure if it's exactly the apology they were looking for. [laughter] yes, ma'am. >> do you think washington gets

-- [inaudible] icy anger from republicans and democrats and i don't think, i don't know. >> you are exactly right. are those of y'all who couldn't hear the question, the question was do i think washington, democrats and republicans, get how angry the american people are after seven years? the answer is no, they don't get at all. the most common thing you hear as you travel the country that you this from republicans, democrats, independents, libertarians, is we keep electing people, they go to washington and to stop listening to us. they don't hear what we have to say. they don't fight for us, they don't stand for us. instead they get in bed with washington. last year i wrote a book -- [applause] thank you. the book spends a lot of time

document what i call the washington cartel, which is at the career politicians in both parties that get in bed in washington. we got a good example of a washington cardinal just a couple of weeks ago where republican leadership passed a massive, a trillion dollars omnibus bill funded 100% of barack obama's big government agenda. funded all of obamacare, all of amnesty, all the planned parenthood, all of this iranian deal, all of the programs that bring syrian refugees you can even though the fbi says they can't get them to see if they are isis terrorist and his republican leadership who took the lead doing that. listen, chuck schumer, nancy pelosi, harry reid all publicly crowed how the republican leadership is just funded all of their big government agenda. that is nuts. and it's why people are fed up with washington. but it's also why we are seeing

so many conservatives unite behind our campaign. because in this primary, every republican running says that they're going to stand up to washington. now, as anyone else don't that sometimes politicians don't do what they say? and the best, a natural next question is some of the equity stand up to washington is, okay, who has stood up to washington? [applause] and who has taken on not just democrats but leaders of our own party? that's what we've got to do is we've got to stand with the american people against the bipartisan corruption of washington. and by the way, the way we win the general is very, very simple. we run a populist campaign of hard-working men and women,

people who want to believe in again and the promise of america, and we run it against the bipartisan corruption of washington that is embodied by hillary clinton. [applause] yes? [inaudible] >> but questioned how do i plan to demolish america's debt? i've got to say that's a fabulous, i like your choice of verbs. listen, that is an incredibly important question. let me step back for a minute and tell a story. so back in 2012 i spoke of the republican national convention down in tampa at the top of our national debt. i talked about our two little girls, caroline and kathryn. when i got back to the hotel room about 1:30 a.m. and i pulled out my phone, begin looking at twitter. it turned out that paula poundstone, the comedian, was watching that night. i guess she had nothing better

to do. and she's sent a tweet. she said, ted cruz just said when his daughter was born a national debt was $10 trillion. now it's $16 trillion. what the heck did she do? [laughter] and heidi and i laughed pretty hard. but you know, caroline is seven. i want to thank him in her short life on national debt has now gone from 10 trillion to over $18 trillion. it's larger than the size of our economy. and what we are doing right now, it is fundamentally immoral. if we don't stop it, you're generation, will spend the rest of your lives not working to meet the needs of the future, not working to meet your priorities, the challenges that come, but simply working to pay

off the debt from the deadbeat parents and grandparents. it is as if your parents went i took out the credit card in your name, went to vegas, partied it up and then said guess what, you are stuck with the bill. and no generation in history of america has ever done what we are doing now. our parents didn't do it to us. their parents didn't do to them. so the only way to change it, it's connected to the question that just came before, you've got to break the washington cartel. you've got to stop the cronyism and stop the corporate welfare and subsidies and mandates. it's one of the reasons why the two key principles i'm running on, legislatively, are repealing obamacare and passing a simple flat tax. why? the beauty of a flat tax is about a great deal of the subsidies and cronyism and mandates are all buried in the

irs code. every loophole, every favoritism, and that empowers washington. you get rid of that with a postcard. the beauty of a postcard, you can't get very much text on a postcard. the laws of physics are on our side at that point. the only way to take on the washington cartel to be the cronyism is to have the movement come from the people. it's got to be a grassroots movement from the people. the other key is economic growth. i'm a numbers guy. if you look at the federal budget, the most important factor in the federal budget is economic growth. since world war ii our economy has grown on average 3.3% a year. from 2008 today, the economy has grown on average 1.2% a year or if we don't turn that around what i call the obama's technician, if we stay at one and 2% growth, we can solve

these problems. on the other hand, if we get back to historical levels of growth, three, four, 5%, everything turns around. that enables us to turn around unemployment, start paying down our debt. it enables us to rebuild our military, to strengthen and preserve social security and medicare. growth is key. that's why it's my number one priority. economic growth. i bundled by the way, jfk, when he ran for president campaigned on 5% economic growth. he got in and he cut taxes, limited regulations and small businesses took off and he achieved economic growth of 5%. you are exactly right. look, jfk campaigned on tax cuts, limiting government and standing up and defeating the soviet communists. jfk would be a republican today.

[applause] he stood for religious liberty and he would be tarred and feathered by the modern democratic party. look, as jfk said, some men see things as they are and ask why. i see things that never were and ask why not. these are the principles that work. we get booming economic growth, take on the cartel and rein in government and that's the only way to turn around our national debt. all right, two final questions from right here. [laughter] a great question. and you get my autograph? absolutely yes. and once i get when we finished a. i promise, happy to do it. yes, ma'am. [inaudible] >> some of those things seem like it would take help from both sides of the aisle. how do you, or how do you intend to get some of those things

done? what are the realistic ones that you can do, even without the support? >> it's a great question. her question was, i heard the things you want to do on day one. what is realistic to get things accomplished. how do we turn things round? one of the things the media does all the time is to try to convince everyone here to give up hope, that there is nothing we can do. we can't win. we can't turn the country around the even if we can't win, it can't change. it's complete nonsense. any president coming and has three principal levers to change the direction of government. the first is executive power. we have seen president obama abusing executive power over and over and over again. here's the silver lining. everything done with executive power can be undone with executive power. [applause]

so if you look at the first three things i promised to do on day one, resent every single illegal and unconstitunconstit utional executive action, a president can do that. you don't need congress, you don't need anybody else. all you need is a pen with eraser and those are gone. directing the department of justice to investigate planned parenthood, given that is within the executive power. a president can't and i will do that on day one. the third is protecting religious liberty. righwrite down the assault on religious liberty as coming from the abuse of executive power, so it president can't and as president i will end of the assault on day one. and one of those can be accomplished before midnight on the very first day. [applause] -- every one of those. and second avenue of presidential change the foreign

policy. and foreign policy likewise can change overnight. think about it. dissemination come the nation of iran released our hostages in 1981 a day ronald reagan was sworn into office. i mean that's the difference a strong commander-in-chief can make. so the next two things i promise, number four and five, ripped to shreds this iranian nuclear deal. a president can do that on his own. he never said that or get to congress so you can undo it as president. [applause] and likewise moving the embassy in israel, congress passed some time ago legislation mandating that but have a presidential waiver. each president keeps waving that. on day one i'm going to unwavering and we will start moving the embassy to jerusalem. [applause] i find a lever of presidential power is legislation.

legislation is more complicated. it takes time. it's why, for example, i don't promised to repeal obamacare on the first day. as much as i would love to, and i promise you there is no one who wants to repeal obama to more than i do, but it president doesn't have the power to do that on day one. that's not a question of executive power because there's a statute passed by law. the only way to undo it is passing another statute through law. the two major legislative initiatives, we talked about this a minute ago that i'm fighting for, repeal obamacare and passing a simple flat tax. let me wrap all three of these questions back together. you asked the question can we get congress to go along with repeal obamacare and passing a tax -- flat tax? today, no. if i try to do that today it would not happen. the only way to change it, think of the last time we beat the washington cartel. it was 1980, the reagan

revolution. it was because there was a this massive grassroots movement from the people that changes the incentives in washington. there's an old joke that politics is hollywood for ugly people. [laughter] my wife says i resemble that remark. but the way you change the dynamic, think about it in 1981, reagan comes into office. tip o'neill am a democrat speaker of the house, tip o'neill told ronald reagan, did not even bother sending your tax plan over to the house. it is dead on arrival. he said, i've got 20 democratic votes to kill your tax plan. now, reagan didn't head over to the capital and pour a drink and uses legendary irish wit. that wasn't going to move tip. tip instead went straight to the people. he was over the heads of congress. he went to the people and the

american people they can light up the phones and calling and calling and calling, and suddenly his 20-foot became 19 votes, 18, 17. we ended up under reagan's leadership because the american people rose up going from a top marginal rate of 70% cutting it all the way to 28%. that's the only way to repeal obamacare and get a flat tax is if you have a mandate from the people so it becomes politically more dangerous for the politicians to do the wrong thing that it is to do the right thing. yes, ma'am. [inaudible] >> how do we who have family members who are on -- how do i convince these people to stop looking at shiny objects and to understand who is the constitutional candidate?

>> a great question. so it's a great question, which was how do we, if there are folks, family members, friends who are supporting mr. trump, how do you convince them to come over to the side? me give you a very simple question that i would suggest you post them. have you ever been burned by a politician? have you ever seen a politician who says one thing and does another? and everyone of us have seen that. we have seen that over and over and over again. it's why we are frustrated out of our mind. how do you distinguish between politicians who will follow through on what they are saying that those were just talking a good game? the republican primary everyone says there are conservative. notice nobody on the debate stage stands up and says i'm a squishy establishment modern, i stand for nothing. [laughter] nobody says that. every one of them claims to be a

conservative. so how do we distinguish? the way to distinguish, the scriptures says you shall know them by their fruits. so i would suggest that you urge your friends who are looking at any other candidate, don't listen to what they say or what i say. ignored what all of us are on the campaign trail. look to our actions. so, for example, every candidate says they oppose obamacare. in 2013 we had as reagan put it a time for choosing of a major drag out not done battle of obamacare where millions rose up her i was proud to lead that fight. and i will point out the other folks on that stage, not of them were anywhere to be found. it is a debate they oppose obamacare, the natural question is, where were you in 2013 when the fight was being fought? after sandy hook when barack obama and harry reid came after

our second and in the right to keep and bear arms, millions of us rose up to protect the second amendment. i was proud to lead that fight. we defeated their gun-control proposal on the floor of the senate. if you look at the other individuals on that debate stage, none of them were anywhere to be found. they didn't stand and fight to defend the second amendment. let's take immigration. the our candidates today who say they care deeply about immigration. they care deeply about amnesty. how do you test that? also in 2013. we had a knockdown, drag out fight. barack obama and chuck schumer and the democrats joined with a bunch of establishment republicans in pushing a massive amnesty plan. that plan made it through the senate and republican leadership was prepared to take it up in the house, passover the democrats and barack obama would

have signed it. we were on the verge of losing amnesty. amnesty would've been granted to 12 million people across this country. the only reason it was beaten is because millions of americans rose up. i was proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with jeff sessions and steve king and with the battle to defeat it, defeated and stop amnesty. [applause] now, i'll give a very, very simple point you commit to any of your friends. the other individuals on that stage were nowhere to be found. it was like they were in witness protection. and let me tell you something. if wind about is being thought, when it's on the verge of amnesty being passed, you don't stand up and show up to fight, then your credibility when you're a presidential candidate when you say gosh, i really care about amnesty, he comes also

suspect. and that is what is so encouraging is what we are seeing, it's the great thing about new hampshire, the great thing about iowa and south carolina. y'all take this seriously. the responsibility to vet the candidates come with him in the eye and said it was done the truth, who was blowing smoke? and to distinguish who has a record of having walked the walk. let me close with this. if y'all agree with me that it's now or never, that we are at the edge of a cliff and if we keep going in this direction for another four or eight more years, we risk losing the greatest country in the history of the world. if you agree with that than i want to ask each of you to do three things. number one, join us. and it tonight to stand up and

vote in the new hampshire primary and stand with us. [applause] the second thing i want to ask of each of you is that you volunteer. sign up tonight. were volunteers who can take names. signed up to be a precinct leader. sign up to be a calculator. commit tonight to pick up the phone and call your mom. that's actually a good idea anyway. called your sister, called your son or your next-door neighbor, your college roommate or your business partner. and say this election matters. it matters for me, for my future. it matters for my kids. it matters for my grandkids. i want to ask you when you're to vote for me 10 times. [laughter] now listen can we are not

democrats. i'm not suggesting voter fraud, let me tell you in every one of you gets nine of the people to show up and vote on primary day, he would've voted 10 times. and by the way, to those of you in high school who are not yet 18, did you get 10 people to show up and photo art, you will have voted 10 times. [applause] at the third and final thing i would ask that each of you is that you pray. that you lift up this country and pride are that you commit today each day from now until election day. spend one minute a day. when you get up in the morning, when you're shaving, having lunch, putting the kids down to sleep, when you are laying down to go to bed sympathetic father god, please, continue this awakening is revival.

awaken the body of christ that we might pull back from this obvious. we are standing on the chronicles. if my people which are called in my name shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways and i would hear their prayer, and will forgive their sin, and i will heal their land. [applause] >> let me tell you a bit of history that our friends in the media will never share with you. in january 1981 when ronald reagan took the oath of office, his left hand was resting on second chronicle. a very concrete manifestation of

those promises from scripture. we have done it before, the american people point this country back from the abyss. we have done it before. and if we stand together we will do it again. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

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

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

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

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

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

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

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

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

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

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ..

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