them say they are. if we knock that 5% up to 20%, think we would take over and retake the world. i'm going to stop right now. thank you very much for having me here. >> jim giving us plenty to think about. he also agreed he would take questions. so whoever wants to go right ahead. >> well, first of all, let me say the newest governor has arrived. governor of mississippi. welcome. you get the first question. >> thank you. jim, i enjoyed that. tell me what if any your information shows is the biggest impediment to these lone wolves, the entrepreneurs? i love these guys. i love being around them. i love talking to them. it's exciting. i think those of us in this business happen to be a little bit of an entrepreneur.

and so what slows them down? what do they say if you j of th? i'd take off. >> okay. that's a deadly question. that's a debate right here. and we just did a great big sample. i even called some of them myself. i get a feel for them. you sound like you know a lot of them, too. they're in a completely different space than the rest of the country. but the question is will banks won't loan them. loan them money. that's what you think. it's not true. when you ask what their biggest burden is, they say this word -- regulations. they say regulations. it's not banks. if anybody tells you because there are some surveys around that they tend to be listed samples. just trust me. and when we say what regulations? the two drilldowns are environment and health care.

now, so they say they shouldn't be saying that. here's the real important thing. it's the image that crushes them. so i look at them as six million turtles. they all have heads in their shells. the question is what will get them to put their heads out? i mean that in a complimentary way. turtles can get running pretty fast. but they have their heads in their shells. >> in mississippi they'll bite you, too. >> yeah. but it's not really an issue. we say how many of you are having trouble getting a loan? that's about 20%. if you and i have both been small businessmen, that's about -- you and i have always had trouble getting loans. 20% is about the right number. banks -- it shouldn't be zero. you should be arguing with these guys with these guys anyway. but regulations but also the image. that's where the messages -- i won't say the names. a group said we're going to give a rebound of $4,000. if people will hire somebody.

you know, that -- then they start worrying about? is that more rules for me? even if they don't do it, don't even talk about it. but then there is something else. they say why don't we have every company hire one employee? six million people are not going to hire one employee. what does that mean? that little guy in jackson, mississippi, is going to hire one and ge hire one when they're laying off 33,000 or whatever? don't bring that up. the conversation makes the turtle pull their head in even more. >> thank you. >> governor? >> thank you. kind of along the same lines as what is mentioned with regulations. when you talk about six million ceos who are not trying to expand their businesses, i expect that they're out there trying to be profitable. i think that's the motivation. that's how free market system works. and as you are profitable, you have opportunities to expand your business and hire more

people. profitability happens in many different ways. to me, it's not only the regulation but the uncertainty of the marketplace. we have a couple trillion dollars of capital sitting on the sidelines not engaging in the marketplace. that's because of uncertainty. regulations, we don't know what the future is going to bring. and for those entrepreneurs out there who got great ideas, they need capital. they got -- when you commercialize, how do you have capital to flow towards helping them commercialize great ideas whatever that may be in a free market system? so my question would be, and how do we get capital flow into the marketplace to, in fact, energize entrepreneurs and help them and commercialization and expansion of existing businesses with new ideas? >> okay. remember the six million. only 25% of them really want to grow. and when we ask them do you have

the capital necessary to grow? they say they do. now you have another group in the 75% where they're going broke. they're having trouble. they'd like to have money. banks won't loan it to them because they know they won't get paid back and they go broke. it's so important that you segment those populations when you're talking to them. the experiment that is one of the most amazing that i've ever done in my whole career, dave and i are doing in nebraska, but we found -- i'm going say 500 small businesses and we put -- we call them a guide. we don't like a mentor. a guide has ten of them. but if you sit down -- we have about five things we do to them, that we agreed and put in a box and -- but then you also have a relationship outside those tools. but you talk with them about their own strategies. they're always doing a lot of things wrong. they'll spend too much time with their worst customers rather

than their best. do you see what i mean? so we put kind of our best consulting tools in. and it's mentoring, advising, that's really what they want. they wish they could have consultants like big companies have. so we've tried to create that. by the way, to do it well, you got to have university of nebraska help. you can't just have some lowly state department do it or it doesn't work at all. it's kind of like management pulling it off. dave is a popular gofrp vernor. he told me he is very, very popular. that's what he told me. we have a very popular governor. because the people in that 25% are real -- there are some real hot shots in there. and owe them want to be part of something that is exciting. you see? you have to put together something that is exciting. and dave really shows up.

the president of the university really shows up. it's a really special thing. that's what they need, not capital. >> governor? >> thank you for all your information. >> by the way, she's from oklahoma. >> yes. we appreciate you coming to day. i was intrigued by your statistics talking about the six million businesses and how many of them are actually looking to expand or not expand and then the last question that we just had about certainty and uncertainty in the marketplace. i just recently did a survey of all our businesses in oklahoma. as many as we could get to reply. we're a small state, 3.8 million people. so we surveyed our businesses. we asked 44 questions. we asked about the tax structure, workforce, education, are you planning to add more jobs not add more jobs? and the interesting thing about

oklahoma, 60% of our businesses that responded said they were going to add jobs which is interesting compared to your statistic as far as how many are looking to expand their businesses. and the other thing that is different in my state is we actually have employers that can't find the workers that they need in oklahoma. we started a new program called okayjobsmatch.com to match employers with employees in the workforce looking for jobs. so it's interesting how what you're saying nationally is a little bit different than what i'm seeing in my state. i think it goes back to the last question is creating that certainty in the marketplace versus the uncertainty that we see nationally. what would you recommend to us that we can do to further create certainty in our states versus what you're seeing nationally? and what do we need to do nationally with the uncertainty in the marketplace?

>> if you take the 20% unemployment, you're right. the variation of performances in this country are unbelievable. especially by city. i mean if you take omaha, i think omaha's unemployment is 4.9 and gdp is growing and as i always look at the -- i think this is okay. if you look at austin, texas and albany, i love comparing those two. both big states. both cities capital cities, no ports, no nothing, for some reason austin, texas, created unbelievable energy. you know, people -- it changes migration pattern and startups and all that. albany can't really get -- the only thing that you can point to are local leadership teams. or they get together and make a strategy. i was looking in nashville. of course they have the music thing. they made that into a health care center. my gosh, i mean there are so

much white collar health care there. but there's enormous differences. the most -- the best thing that we can do is the 1.5 million small businesses, the same number of soldiers we, have but if we worked as hard at developing them like we did our military, i love the military, by the way. but if we got as good at that science, thn i think that's our best chance to come up. and we've got to get free enterprise. obviously i'm a capitalist. but those kids coming out of high school, they better be in the state of mind of free enterprise or we won't have the startups that we need. i think those are the two big places to focus on. dave and i can help you and tell you about our experiment. and the other one is get a

metric. gallup just gave it as a gift to the country. if you go on gallup.com, you have a thing that your schools can plug in right will to measure how much innovation, energy and how much entrepreneur energy and then how many are in internships. whatever the internship number in your state is, it's too low. it needs to go up three or five times. >> governor go, ahead. >> let's say we solve the issue on having teaching folks how to be entrepreneurs. and then we so many of the issue on regulation. so we have governments that have found ways to make it much more easier to do business. now the statement you made under certain successful communities and then, of course places dg small communities, 13% or some other areas where, again, over

9%. the question i have is there, in fact, it's a two-part question. you need a customer. it ultimately comes into you need a customer. and is there enough to let's say this territory this county figures it out? but is there enough to -- do you then take from the other county or the other state that customer and prosper it? you eluded to the issue now of globalization. and where america is at 25% now but if you look at all the experts and 10, 20, 30 years, maybe we're a small piece of the pie. if we're driven by small business, how do you get more customers and it's not just a customer from albany or a

customer from oklahoma? how do you get that small business entrepreneur who doesn't have much regulation to other customers in this global economy? >> i understand your question. one thing is -- one of the reasons we have a slowdown is we're not selling stuff fast enough to each other. so we do need more competition. but you're right. that won't take us up to the greaty big gdp numbers we need to continue the relationship we have now with the rest of the world. we did need that competition. we can get another 7% out of. that but the big answer is export. you can kind of see the whole future through, i mean apple, groupon, obviously cars and a whole bunch of other things. but if we don't experort, none this works. those little guys are doing a pretty good job within that 25% group. i mean, you know, the facebooks and that kind of thing. those numbers add up really

fast. you're spot on. we're just selling -- we can't sell enough stuff to each other to get the numbers we need. >> any final questions? governor? >> you indicated that among the responses that you got, the word used to cover a multitude of sins was the word regulation and when you said you drill down a little one of the elements that came forward was health care. health care, the provision of health care, financing health care, i presume is what you mean by that. the costs associated with health care and those businesses. it is very little to do or nothing to do with regulation as such and has everything to do with how we provide health care. what is the assumption about health care?

you mentioned the united states military, if we had training, if we had an investment, if you will in the united states military. as someone who was involved for two decades on the arms services committee before i took this job, i can tell you i have some experience in how you provide that health care. it's national. in fact international and universal health care. what is happening at least where my collective bargaining is concerned as an employer in the state of hawaii. health care is the single most -- the provision of health care and the cost is the single. it's not state spending. it's the cost running away. the spending chasing the costs. until we come to grips with the question of health care and get away from the political rhetorics associated with accusations about it, we're not going to be able to deal with

whether it's called regulation and health care or anything else. we have to come to grips with the question, the provision of health care and the exploding costs around it before we'll have some of the flexibility with regard to investment and education and all the rest of it. >> when respondents say health care or whatever, something to keep in mind is also the image of regulations might be more than the actual regulations. so it could be the six million turtles throwing their hands up saying oh, my gosh, more regulations. but then trying to pin them down, they can't really pin it down. but, of course, you're right. everything i'm talking about this morning addresses the offense. we can't cut our way out of

this. we got to cut a lot. but if our gdp doesn't bounce way up, none of this works. if you're going to go to the defense, sorry about the football thing, the defense is health care and is unbelievable. it's 2$2.5 trillion now. if you add those stubs that, is $10 trillion which is three times bigger than the subprime meltdown. the tsunami that's coming in from health care is just unbelievable. and the only solution -- what we're doing here in washington is just moving the money around. the only solutions actually lie in preventative measures at 8,000 a person targets getting out ahead of a lot of people on this. but so they have about 300,000 people. so you see they're 300,000 times 8 thou sthou 8,000 is $2.5 billion. that is half their profit. so health care has gotten to the same place. remember the joke warren buffett made about general motors or

somebody was really health care company that happened to sell cars? because we were saying it only -- what you meant is only survived to provide health care. that's pretty much the way all our businesses are now. i better end. thank you very much. >> president obama's in prince george, virginia today talking about the economy. about ten minutes from now he'll be speaking at a rolls royce plant that makes jet engines. you'll be able to see his appearance live on c-span again in about ten minutes. a little later today, the president will head to houston. he is holding a campaign fundraise tler with tickets ranging up to $10,000. this weekend kansas held its republican presidential caucuses and alabama and mississippi have primaries on tuesday. today mitt romney has a campaign stop at thompson tractor in birmingham, alabama. this morning he held a town hall meeting in jackson, mississippi. rick santorum was also on the campaign trail today.

he was in alabama with a rally in mobile. this afternoon he'll head to kansas. newt gingrich is staying in the south. he has three events in mississippi and a rally aboard the uss alabama in mobile. ron paul is in kansas. he's campaigning in topeka, wichita and the university of kansas. that's in lawrence. earnest hemingway is considered one of the great american writers. had his work still influences readers today. not many know of his work as a spy during world war ii. >> there were a couple of instance that's he was aware of when german submarines approaching fishing boats and saying we'll take your catch and your fresh food. so earnest says i'll wait for them to come alongside and then my highlight players are going to lob hand grenades down the open hatches. and the other members of the crew are going to machine gun the germans on deck. >> military and intelligence historian nicholas reynolds on

hemingway, the spy. sunday night at 8:30. part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> secretary of state hillary clinton testified on capitol hill recently about the state department's $52 billion budget request for next year. members of the house foreign affairs committee asked her about iran's nuclear program. the political uprising in syria and other topics. this is about 2 1/2 hours. >> the meeting will come to order. because the secretary must leave at 4:00, after opening remarks i will ask the secretary to summarize her testimony and then we will move directly to the questions from our members. given the vote situation, the ranking member will be recognized to deliver his opening remarks. if we are going to be interested

by votes. but here you are, and there's no problem. i'm going to give my remarks and yours. >> you're going to give your remarks? >> no, i'll give mine. i don't trust you with my remarks. without objection members may have five days to submit statements and questions for the record. madam secretary, welcome back to the committee to discuss the administration's foreign relations budget request. all of us have great respect for you, madam secretary, as well as for the dedicated men and women who promote the interest and values of our nation throughout the world. our nation faces unsustainable deficits, so we must justify every dollar that we spend, especially because 35 cents of every dollar is borrowed. i appreciate your restraint with the top line number in your budget proposal coming in at $5.1 billion below last year's request. but i disagree with the priorities and programs funded with those limited resources.

in iraq and afghanistan, both these governments must be pushed to take the necessary steps to be our long-term reliable partners. we are not seeing such a commitment from karzai or maliki. too much american blood and treasure have been invested in both countries for us to have governments in place that threaten american interests. iran's belligerent and unhelpful role in afghanistan and iraq is worrisome, particularly with reports indicating their co-option of those governments at senior levels. so madam secretary, what additional pressure can we bring to bear to offset the iranian influence in afghanistan and iraq? in pakistan, the level of cooperation, as we know, that we get from the government, continues to fall short. serious questions persist about whether elements of the pakistani government support

prominent insurgent groups fighting against our troops in afghanistan. in other middle eastern countries, i've had concerns from day one about the administration's approach to the arab spring and to the forces that work there, including radical islamist groups. the administration appears focused on spending a lot of money in search of a policy. your budget request doubles down on that approach by requesting a $770 million middle east and north africa incentive fund. a fund with almost no restriction on how it can be used. even though press reports indicate that egypt may have decided to lift the travel ban on our ngo workers, we should not reward egypt with aid when it is demonstrating hostility to western democratic entities and is engaging in an ongoing dance between authoritarians and the muslim brotherhood. in contrast, the administration did the right thing by enforcing u.s. law and cutting off funding to unesco after an undermined

peace by admitting the nonexistent state of palestine. your request to now change the law and send $80 million to unesco would be a grave mistake. any weakening of u.s. law would undermine our credibility and give a green light for other u.n. agencies to grant recognition of a palestinian state. u.s. funding for unesco must only be restored if unesco votes to unadmit palestine. the budget for the western hemisphere is another example of misplaced priorities. the administration has requested an increase in funding for the general budget of the organization of american states, yet you cut u.s. contributions to the oas fund for strengthening democracy by almost $2 million. the administration is proposing increased financial assistance to nicaragua, bolivia, and

ecuador, three governments that continue to undermine u.s. security interests in the hemisphere, disregard human rights, and ignore the rule of law. there can be no justification for such an increase in funds to these countries. in nicaragua, the state has spent millions to promote free, fair and transparent elections. that money was not used wisely, as the elections in nicaragua were fraudulent and ran afoul of the nicaraguan constitution. we must not repeat last year's performance in ecuador or bolivia, where state departments spent more money on environmental programs than counter narcotics operations or good governance. this budget fails to hold abusers of democracy in the region accountable and cuts support for democracy. instead of standing in solidarity with the cuban and venezuelan people in their time of need, this budget turns its back on them. repression continues unabated in cuba. the castro regime orders its state security forces to beat

members of the ladies in white as they leave church services on sundays. prisoners of conscience die while many worldwide turn a blind eye to their plight. in venezuela, the chavez regime has demolished the authority of intimidated the opposition by leveraging control over the judicial system. turning to the disastrous situation in syria, this administration does not appear to have a coherent strategy. the russians and the iranians clearly have a strategy, and it could be summarized as actively support the repression by the syrian army. the iranian regime defies responsible nations and pursues nuclear weapons capabilities. a nuclear armed iran is unacceptable and we must oppose any policy that relies on mere containment as a response to this mortal threat. president obama has said that the united states has an ironclad commitment to the security of israel.

so will the u.s. militarily back israel if it decides to protect itself from an iranian nuclear threat? finally, madam secretary, i have grave concerns about today's north korea announcement, which sounds a lot like the failed agreements of the past. while it is good that it mentions the uranium enrichment program, whose existence the north koreans had so long denied, we must recall that regime's constant duplicity. we have bought this bridge several times before. one troubling new aspect is the discussion of nuclear issues and food aid in the same announcement, which blurs the separation of humanitarian aid from the nuclear negotiations which has been maintained since 1995. the north koreans will view this food as payment due for their return to the bargaining table, regardless of the transparency and monitoring we hoped to secure in the future. again, madam secretary, thank you so much for making yourself

available today. i look forward, and the members do as well, to receiving your testimony. and now i'm pleased to recognize my friend, the gentleman from california, the ranking member, mr. berman, for his opening statement. >> well, thank you very much, madam chairman, and madam secretary, welcome. thanks for being here. at the outset, there were some differences in our view. i would like to commend you for your hard work on north korea. today's announcement to pyongyang has agreed to freeze long-range missile launches, nuclear tests, and uranium enrichment activities and allow the iaea back into the country appears to be an important step on a long and difficult path. you know, the chair knows, i know, we all know that we've been down this road before, and it does remain to be seen whether the north will keep its promises this time. but in a more general sense, i'd like to recognize the tremendous commitment and dedication you have shown to reestablishing the united states, not just as an

indispensable power, but as an indispensable partner. you have made it your mission to show the world the best of who we are as americans. eloquently and consistently, you have spoken up for women, for the poor, and for those who human rights and dignity had been trampled. you have elevated development alongside diplomacy and defense, as a pillar of our national security. within the administration and in the halls of congress, you have fought to ensure that our diplomats and aid workers receive the resources they need and the respect they deserve. they risk their lives every day to support american interests abroad, and the face of mounting deficits here at home, it is important to remember that these civilian efforts are much more cost effective than deploying our military. today we're here to assess how the president's fiscal year 2013 international affairs budget responds to the threats and priorities we face as a nation. many people believe erroneously that foreign aid accounts for 20% or more of our budget. the truth is, we spend just over 1% of our national budget on diplomacy and development. yet these programs have an outsized impact on our health, os