she can't read stating be positive case and she also in no way tried to delegitimize the republican opposition. she kept saying that they have a right to ask me and members of my staff to come explain how the law works. it's a legitimate oversight function. she is being very cordial faced with political opposition. >> what did she not answer in your questioning? >> she did not answer the question we both asked, whether there were specific parts of the law should like to revise and whether she would like to begin engaging congress in a debate around those provisions. >> i was going to raise at the same thing. i suppose this has been the administration's posture's -- administration's posture since the lawsuit started -- what will they do with part of it gets

stricken? they do not acknowledge it is a possibility. they are remaining optimistic in public that they will eventually win out. >> the thing that is interesting about the administration's defense of the mandate is that neither the secretary or the president were proponents of the mandate. hillary clinton was the big proponent of the mandate, but this administration has become the heir to something they had started out not being in favor of and now have become quite a the champions of. >> you asked about the cost of implementation. did the secretary satisfy you with the answer? >> it was interesting to hear her say they are essentially planning, as they work now, to carry out all of these new

responsibilities in deed without an increase in their budget, but even more so, with less money. she did not speculate about what might happen if republicans are successful in the component taking money away from them carrying out the regulations so they cannot work. a partial government shutdown, if you will. she did not talk about what she would do if that happened. i think it is hard to imagine what the contingency plan might be for that. >> finally, what did you not get to ask her that she wanted to ask her? >> one of the things health and human services will have to contend with is what the states are going to do. a lot of the implementation rests with implementations they began to put out but the states

have a lot of discretion and there have been a lot of new republican governors elected. they are not in harmony with what the law says. sete'll be an interesting of laws when the administration determined what this law looks like for people living in different parts of the country. >> this is a relatively small thing compared to the issues about health care reform and the insurance market. last month, the administration issued a regulation where medicare and start paying doctors to discuss and of life options with their patients. a couple of weeks after that, they withdrew it. this ignited some controversy during the debate over health care reform. they thought it was a way for them not to seek extraordinary measures. the -- they supported them taking it out of the bill and putting it into regulation and and got rid of it.

i was interested to hear the explanation as to why that happened and if they were interested in revisiting the topic later. >> thank you. >> each year, the washington center brings hundreds of students to washington to experience the workings of government firsthand. tonight, they will discuss government, politics, and their future. >> on thursday, former minnesota governor, tim pawlenty was promoting his new book at the national press club. he indicated a possible run for the presidency in 2012 and said he will announce his decision this spring. this is about one hour.

>> you presided over this at a very important time for our country. let's get a round of applause for his service. [applause] we all know that we live in the freest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world, the united states of america. we are blessed to live in this great nation. but as i travel around and as you travel around this great country, you get the clear sense as you talk to people and listen to the dialogue and debate that something is amiss. the american confidence, the american optimism, the american sense of hope for the future is diminished. there is worry in the air and people wonder if the american dream still rings true and is still a guarantee and opportunity for them and their

families. there is a lot of discussion in the recent hours and recent days about the incident in arizona and in the aftermath of that event, there was instant judgment on incomplete facts and other sorts of condemnation that seeped into the discussion. one of the things i presided over during my time as governor was the 35 w bridge collapse. there was a terrible tragedy and 13 minnesota and lost their lives in that tragedy. a number of lessons came from out of that tragedy. as americans always do and as people in minnesota do, when there is a time of crisis, when there is a tragedy, people ran not away but ran toward the danger. they wanted to help others and

do what they can to make the situation better to help in the recovery. there are astounding stories of heroes as there was in tucson just some days ago. as we come together in this moment of reflection, condolence and concern, it lessens emerge. my book is not just about lessons learned in my upbringing and my time as governor, but lessons learned in leadership, crisis, and service. one of those lessons is, in time of crisis, leaders and people in responsible positions need to step forward and make sure we make good, accurate statements based on good information. we cannot have a functioning democracy unless we have an informed citizenry. we cannot have an informed citizenry unless we have good

and accurate information. the national press club and its members elevate and continue that tradition. it plays a vital role in the fabric and well-being and health of our democracy. i take that sentiment i expressed very seriously and sincerely. thank you for the work you do. we know that in those instances where reality and fact gives way to condemnation based not on fact, but allegation and it becomes very corrosive not just to the debate but for our democracy more broadly. in my experience with the bridge collapse, we have individuals who made severe judgment in the early moments and hours of the crisis that turned out to be flat wrong. one year later, the national transportation safety board determined the primary cause for the bridge falling was a design

flaw dating to the 1960's, unrelated to much of the concern and allegation expressed and we saw some of the same reactions in this tragedy a few days ago. i come today in the spirit of great discourse and accurate and fair discourse in the way we can help ensure that is to question each other and the engage in these kinds of dialogues. thank you for being here today as friends and guests and interested citizens and stakeholders in the process. i would like to talk to you today about that sense for many in our country that the american dream is somehow slipping away, evading the grasp of our citizens at a level that is perhaps more troubling that mode -- and most of the scanner member in our lifetime. i want to talk to you about restoring the american dream by restoring american common sense.

we have learned about this concept of common sense through various channels and experiences in our lifetime and various people in the room, the experience includes our upbringing, our value system, our life experience, our world view and philosophy and a variety of other things. for me, these early common sense of benchmarks and lessons were formed in my home town of south st. paul. this book was written with attention to the background, but it is a small suburb, back in '60s, it was home to some of the world's largest stockyard and meatpacking plants. that's was an enormous part of the culture and economy of my home town. so many families up and down my street and my family was

connected economically and culturally to these huge engines of the economy and my town. as things change and evolve economically, those plans dramatically shut down and the economic pillars of my community, the economic foundation of my childhood and my neighborhood began to unravel in pretty severe ways. the trauma that visit some people and families when their livelihood are questioned and destabilized and called into doubt is almost unimaginable unless you have experienced it yourself. i know that many or most in the room have. it is not unlike the worry we see in the country today. amidst all of that, when i was 16, my mom passed away of cancer. not too many years after that, my dad, who was a truck driver for must show of his life lost his job for a while.

i'm the only one in my family was able to go to college, not because my brothers and sisters did not have the capacity or ability, but they did not have the -- they were able to get by and prosper and raise a family, but they did things like work in oil refineries and my other brother recently retired after working 40 plus years as a produce clerk in produce store. my sister works on a one-on-one special education aid and my other sister has worked as a secretary or executive assistant in the same company. i share that with you. because some of you are old enough to remember, reagan democrats or sam's club republicans, they -- there is a perspective that comes with having those kinds of life experience. back in the day, my mom's

generation or my grandma and grandpa's generation, if you missed the educational run for what ever reason, you were disadvantaged and disenfranchised. you were disrespected. as long as you are not disabled, you could often go get what my dad called the strong back job. you could go to the meatpacking plant and cut meat and load and unload freight. you could drive a forklift, you could do the hard work of what existed in the stockyards or plants or related industries all over america, it was the fall back for safety net for the american dream for those who could not grab onto the education or skills necessary to access the economy of that day and time. but as we all painfully know, things have changed.

those strong back jobs which were the backbone of the american middle-class have migrated away and disappeared for various reasons. now we are at a point where our fellow citizens and the generation that is to come behind us has to have the skill to access the economy of today and tomorrow because if you do not, you are marginalized in our society in ways that are extremely difficult and extremely hard to overcome in this hyper competitive global economy we live in. of i want to talk to you today about that, but also the important role the government can play in recognizing a limited role and a more responsible and effective role in the lives of our citizens in the context of what are those

american common-sense values that will help get us back on track. i won't go through them all, but i want to share five with you. the first one is not very complex and is common sense. we have all seen it and experienced it. if you ask people in minnesota and if you ask americans what matters most to you, most often they will say i am a person of faith and that matters all lot. right behind that, they will say i love my family and that matters most to me. after that, they will describe a series of other things that bring them joy and meeting that have them positively motivated. they might say at want to get my basement finished or i'm worried about how going to pay my health care or i have a concern or dream i could get my children to college and pay for it. or they might sell want to watch the minnesota vikings next year or i would like to go duck hunting.

i get great joy at of doing that with my son or daughter and a variety of other things. the point is you can't do any of that. you cannot have a pathway to that unless you have money. for most americans, their pathway to opportunity for money is having a job. there's a great debate in this nation now, as there should be, about what are the things we can do to make it more likely that jobs are going to start here and state and grow here and as all of the politicians run all over the country and say they are the jobs leader, let's make sure we ask and answer the question buys the people to actually provide the jobs that actually done the work of having a dream and having an invention and innovation to invest and build buildings and add payroll and buy capital equipment and commercialize it here in the united states of america.

when you ask people to actually provide the jobs and do those things that will keep a private sector economy growing, there are clear and consistent answers that come back to policymakers. those answers to not best reside in the minds of the politicians, most of them who have not worked in the private sector or haven't done what i am describing. when you listen to these entrepreneurs and these dreamers, when you listen to these designers, the folks that will make our opportunity and fold in the future of our economy, they say first and foremost, governor or a member of congress or a legislator, you have to keep my cost competitive. this is a highly competitive national and global market, as measured by taxes and the costs and burdens associated with regulations associated with the time it takes to get a permit,

unemployment insurance costs, energy costs, and all of the other costs that come with it, the costs at add up to doing business in a city, county, state and nation, how does it compare to the rest of the market, not as measured by the rhetoric of a politician, but measured by the objective-board you can put up and say how was my state and nation doing against the rest of the world in those activities we know most matter to job growth? when you conduct that exercise for minnesota and all-america, we have work to do. this first lesson i want to share with you is life is pretty tough if you don't have a job. we have to do those things with strategic precision that is going to stimulate and ignite job growth in this country, not in the public sector, but in the

private sector if we are going to have success. in minnesota, our employment rate is about 7%, which is significantly lower than the national average. our job growth rate since the crash is approaching three times the national average. our income growth that 2010 was double the national average and our per capita or personal and comes in the state are amongst the highest in the country and there are many other measures of that kind of growth in my state. the second principle of common sense, to return america's dream and america's promises we have to be responsible, and it is this principle. we cannot spend more than we have. you cannot do it as an individual, you cannot do it as a family, you cannot do it as a business, you cannot do it as a state by law in 49 states and we certainly cannot do it as a federal government.

we have a federal government that took in about $2.2 trillion and spent $3.7 trillion, with a trillion dollar deficit as far as the eye can see. this is not a matter of right versus left. it's a matter of eighth grade mathematics. it is unsustainable, irresponsible, reckless and it will take us down the path we are seeing unfolding in parts of europe. just because we followed greece into democracy does not mean need to follow into bankruptcy. [applause] >> howdy do that, it is difficult, i will tell you about difficult.

i am from the state of mccarthy, mondale, al franken -- if we can shrink government in minnesota, as frank sinatra would sing about new york, if we can do it there, we can do it anywhere. what are the measurements? i was born in the year 1960. that makes me 50 years old this year. i got my aarp card in the mail. i did not keep it. 1960, until i became governor 40 years, 42 years, up to 2002, the average to year increase in the spending of my state was 21% for 40 years. there is no way you can sustain that.

during my time as governor, we have it down to about 1% a year. it is a transformation, but it was a difficult transformation. there are powerful forces that want to say we have to reduce our spending pattern. we must not reduce government's footprint. we have to raise taxes. i drew a line in the sand and said and we are going to live within our means, just like everybody else. when the economy is growing, you cannot have government growing, as a matter of math and basic economics. in my state, that principle remains. i talk about sam's club republicans. what i mean by that is when you look at the faces of people to shop at sam's club, wal-mart, k- mart or if you have extra change

in your pocket, you may go up market. you see people don't have a lot of money, but they are looking for the best value for the money they do spend. they are also investing in families as you see their cards overflowing with huge volume based purchases of toilet paper and the staples of life. they are trying to minimize or reduce the bird at eight other family with their shopping experience so that their children and loved ones can have more opportunity and have the needs of their life met. the third thing i want to mention is this -- common-sense principle -- people spend money differently if at least some of it is their own money. if you have time in your busy life to read white papers and go to seminars and the stay up all night and watch cable tv, i hope you do, those are valuable

experiences. but if you need a short cuts and all you need to know about government reform and accountability, just do this -- go to two weddings and a given weekend. go to one where there is an open bar, where the refreshments are free and unless. go to one where there is a cash bar where people have to pay for their refreshments to some degree. you will see very different behaviors. i said this in new york not long ago, and they said who the heck has a cash bar any more? [laughter] i did not have the heart to tell them in minnesota that we saw have the dollar dance for the bride so we can send them off on their new adventure. if you have a system where people get to consume stuff without knowledge or responsibility about making wise choices, price and quality, and the provider has no incentive other than to provide more

volume of what ever is being considered, and the bill does someone else and it is all free, that's a system i assure you is doomed to fail. that unfortunately is most of government. it is particularly most of our health-care system as i have described that phenomenon. let me camp on that as one example of many. if you look at what is driving much of government spending for cities, school districts, for counties and states, for the federal government, it is the health-care issue. if is driving budget at a rate and pace that exceeds almost everything else. if we do not solve this problem, really solve this problem, it will take down the country or at least in paris from within. president obama stood in iowa and said he was going to do health care reform with an

emphasis on cost containment on a bipartisan basis and we were going to tackle this issue with particular emphasis on the part of health care that challenges and worries most americans, which is am i going to be able to afford it? he broke that promise. that's not what he delivered to the country and it is not going to work. what is the future business with its cash bar business in the background? we need to have consumers in charge. have user-friendly information about price and quality. that the providers of the service have incentives to do more than just provide volume, that they have to be held accountable for better results and better health than that money is in alignment to those goals and is at least in partial control of the purchaser and consumer and they are in a transaction with the provider. that is not what our health-care

system is currently in minnesota. what does that look like on the ground? we set a while back with our state employees who were struggling with the health care costs. we said how about a new system where if you choose, you can go wherever you want, but if you choose to go somewhere that is higher in cost and lower in quality or efficiency, and you are going to pay more. if you go somewhere that is better in outcomes and lower in cost or higher in efficiency, you will pay less. 90% of our state employees, now that they had a generalized financial skin in the game, noticed and migrated to more efficient, higher quality providers and the premium increases in the program, and lee an astounding way have been 0% for -- in an astounding way have an 0% or approaching it. that's almost unheard of because

consumers are in charge. they have information and accountability and we have begun the process of paying providers not just on volume, but better outcomes and better health. the next principle is this -- as a nation, if we're not going to be the biggest plays, and we are not, we only have 300 million people. if we're not going to be the cheapest place, we are probably not going to be the cheapest place. if they're not going to be the biggest or the cheapest, we darn well better be the smartest. the comparative advantage for the night states of america is that our people are educated, they're skilled, they are innovative, they are inventive, their collaborative, they have the abilities to see, create, and invent much of the way the world has not yet known, but they are working on that. we need to not just keep pace,

but be ahead of it. this goes right to the issue of our education system. you cannot have a successful country with one third of our future citizens being relatively unskilled or essentially unskilled and uneducated and expected to work. it is not going to work morally. it does not work socially. it is not going to work economically, strategically and it presents a moral and educational and economic imperative for the nation. as a "time" magazine pointed out, we have one-third of our children in the united states of america not completing high school. if you do not complete high school and maintain some skill level beyond that, you cannot access the economy of today and tomorrow, you become that marginalized citizen in our country and, with the strong back jobs being gone, there's no where for you to go. you become trapped in a vicious

cycle of a bunch of part-time service jobs >> then the call comes for more government housing, more government health care, or government everything, at a time that we cannot afford it. the reason they cannot afford it is because they cannot pay for it themselves. of jobn't have the kind or skills or education. becomes a vicious cycle and it needs to be broken. we need to move on to the next level of performance. the number one determining factor of how a child is going to do in school is the degree and level and intensity and frequency of their parents engagement in their lives, and their school lives in particular. the second most important determining factor is the

prepared this and effectiveness of their teachers. there is an entire agenda that needs to now occur around who is going into teaching, whether we are recruiting the best and brightest to come into teaching, whether we have rigorous enough entrance requirements before we allow them to come into those colleges of education and if they are requiring subject matter mastery and not just teaching a methodology. whether before we let them out of the colleges of education they can demonstrate minimal and beyond that competency once they enter the profession, whether we are measuring their effectiveness by whether students are learning, how fast they are learning, and what they are learning. in the teacher unions in this nation, i love educators. they work hard and they do not

get paid too much, but they work in the system that was built and envisioned in the 1950's that looks nothing like the kind of systems and accountability that we have now and will have in the future. it needs to fundamentally change. as we were waiting for superman, as the movie and (of the nation, we had superwoman. she was in this district. she had this kind of agenda in the most trouble, high spending district in the nation. she was essentially dismissed because of her views. while we were waiting for superman, super woman was pushed aside. her name was michelle. she was -- michelle rhee. she spoke the truth, and they kicked her out. one last thing, and minnesota we have great test scores and some

of the best scores and the best indicators. you peel back the onion, that is to become from an area of advantage or at least reasonable functionality. if you come from a background of socioeconomic unraveling, the numbers in minnesota tell a different story. we or the first eight in the nation to offer performance based pay. this issue is so important to the future of our country. we cannot let a labor organization put the interests of adults in front of the strategic and moral interests of our children in our country any longer. when people say what can we do about it? the come to town like this and say we are for the poor and disadvantaged. one of the first things they do is to eliminate the scholarship under this administration and the former democratic controlled congress for scholarships for poor children and washington, d.c to go to a school of their choice. shame on them.

and the critics against school choice a governor, you are going to just take the wealthy, the healthy, the banished and give them these chances to flee the public schools and leave behind a more challenges population. how can you defend that? harkin you even suggest that -- how can you even suggest that? what if we gave that joyce, what if we gave that scholarship, what if we gave that freedom only to the poor, the disabled, those who are already failing. who is against giving another chance to a failing or disadvantaged or disabled child? please stand up and show your face and raise your hand. i would like to see you defend that. they cannot, in those terms. you may have learned this lesson. you may have learned it in

sports, business, you may have learned it in a bar, but it is always true. bullies respect strength, not weakness. when the united states of america projects its national security interests here and around the world, we need to do it with voices incapacity of strength. there is a troubling trend developing on this front under the leadership of this administration. a couple of examples, president bush negotiated anti-missile defense systems with two of our best allies in the world, that czech republic and poland. president obama came in and reversed that decision and pull the rug out from underneath them after they had already extended their necks a long way in the politics of europe to host those

systems at our request, to the point where let will lasso was quoted as saying -- lech walesa was quoted as saying you cannot trust the united states anymore, they are only in it for themselves. the question is being raised about where the united states stood. we have to be strong. none of this is going to be easy, but this is the united states of america. we are the american people. we have seen difficulties before and we always overcome, but we need to do it with a clarion call towards what made us great and make sure we don't lose sight of that and applied to the challenges of our time. if prosperity were easy, everybody around world would be prosperous. it's freeware easy, everybody

around the world would be free. -- if freedom or easy. it takes an extraordinary effort, extraordinary commitment, extraordinary strength to stand up to the forces on the other side of these principles, but we can do it. valley forge was not easy. settling the west was not easy. going to the moon was not easy. the heroism and commitment of the people on flight 93 was not easy. this is not about easy. it is not about going home and just kicking back in our respective tv venues. this is about rolling up our sleeves and pushing ahead down and plowing forward and getting it done. thank you for listening this morning. i appreciated, and i look forward to your questions. [applause]

>> thank you, governor. we have no shortage of questions from our audience as well as several became an online. what did you think of president obama speech on the tucson shootings? >> i flew back from new york last not sought was not able to watch the speech live or in its entirety. i can only comment on the exurbs i saw on the news. from my standpoint, the president and leader of our nation at this moment needs to express the sentiments and emotions of our country, and from what i could see from those exurbs, he did a fine job. >> what would your opinion be of speaker boehner's decision to attend an rnc fun raiser instead of the tucson memorial? >> i did here this morning that the invitation to attend a memorial came very late after he had already made some other commitments. i cannot speak to all the

mechanics there, but i can tell you i know john boehner. he is a person of conviction in character and i support him strongly. i don't know what all the reasons were for all of that, but i did here this morning that the invitation to him came very, very late, after he had already made other arrangements and it was very difficult for him to change it. >> in your book, you mention socialism. why did concerns over federal power rise so greatly in 2009 in a way it did not when the bush administration also expanded government power? >> that is the debate i had with jon stewart last month, actually. there is a continuum between liberty and tyranny. as government, in whatever level pushes into areas that were previously the province of family or neighborhood or community or charity or private markets, every time government

pushes into one of those areas and nudges us a little bit back, it basically says don't take the initiative, we will do it. you don't have to worry about responsibility, we will do it. you don't have to have the activity is necessary to put together that safety net or that program because we will do it. sometimes it happens in big ways, like you saw unfold with health care. other times it happens in incremental ways that you hardly ever notice. the more government pushes then itself and pushes out individual responsibility, accountability, charity, neighborhood, family and the like, we move down the continuum. as it relates to republicans in event, you in any had issues where republicans -- this came up last night, an

issue in the 1990's. many conservatives said we do not want the federal government telling us what to do in education. some republicans said we want to make sure that we have accountability for hell is spent. it is not fair to say republicans in charlie did not express concerns about federalism in the 1990's. >> there is also a reference to the bush administration and the patriot act. when there have been republican increases in the scope of the federal government, do you think there is a different dynamic at play than when you see it happening the other way around? >> the question is, is there hypocrisy between conservatives and republicans taking swings that president obama and the pelosi-read congress on federal overreach compared to the voices in years past?

probably. it is also true that the republican party in its current form has that clearly in focus. i think you will see a consistent and clear message, not just in these six months of for the foreseeable future. >> you mentioned president obama did initially called for bipartisan health care reform. it also had republican leaders think their strategy was to say no to everything the administration put forth. is president obama solely to blame for lack of bipartisanship in washington? >> no. [laughter] the reagan mantle has always been very attractive for republican presidential hopefuls. how do you see yourself as a republican in the reagan mold and however the challenges for

republicans different today than they were in the 1980's? >> ron reagan was many things, but he was one of the best presidents in the history of the country. a number of questions arise, what can we learn from reagan substantially and stylistically? substantially, reagan understood that all government played limited but important roles, went over regis it becomes inefficient, bureaucratic, and all that limitations it has in being efficient and effective, that government should be limited. the real genius in power of america was the american spirit and he wanted to retrench government and unleash more of that american spirit. that is the reagan wisdom and the reagan legacy and he was successful in advancing it. we can also learn stylistically from ronald reagan. he was a strong, strong

conservative. he had strong views, strong convictions. he had the confidence in knowing who he was, that his feet were planted in the right place, that his compass was set to true north. so he was definitely a movement conservative, but you did not see him very often the mean or judge or get angry. he certainly expressed his views in strong ways, but ronald reagan was a hopeful, optimistic, can do, of a person -- thoughtful person. at the end of the day, americans are looking not just for an indictment of the problem, a bill of particulars around all the wrong things. they want to know, show us the way out. what is the better way forward? ronald reagan was able to do that, and the country really needs that now. >> do you know where ronald

reagan was when he announced his first presidential candidacy? >> no, but based on you and the tone of that question, i suspect it was here. >> jimmy carter and john kennedy announced their candidacies here as well, but i did not think you would find that as unconvincing. how would america be different today had been chosen as john mccain's running mate in 2008 rather than sarah palin? >> with all due respect to my friend john mccain, i don't think it was going to matter who he picked as his vice presidential running mate. i believe that once the economy crashed in 2008, that he or whoever the republican candidate turned out to be was likely to lose the election. i think we will end up at about the same spot at least from that moment in time. >> but the palin vice- presidential candidacy certainly provided her with her first national exposure.

what has her influence been on america? >> large. [laughter] a number of things about sarah palin, i don't know her well but she is an acquaintance and i have had a chance to spend some time with her at various meetings and conferences. i think she is a remarkable leader and as to this notion that somehow she is not worthy of consideration for national office, she had more executive experience before being selected as vice-president and president obama had before he became president. that included being a mayor, the chief executive of a pipeline or energy commission, and it included being a governor. there is also little bit of a double standard at play. if you have different kinds of experiences, not that much, but you went to a certain more prominent school in a different part of the country, or you were

the law review editor of some journal or something, all of a sudden that is more valuable to the discussion than if you are in a place like alaska or minnesota because there is a sense that maybe not -- meaghan that is not quite up to our standards in some people's eyes. i do not agree with that. as it relates to arizona, setting aside all the debate about the tone, in those early hours and days, she was falsely accused. people came flat out and blame her in part for that incident, and the facts as we know them today did not bear them out. >> we have several questions about specific political issues. your discussion of walmart republicans. walmart if it were an individual country would be one of china's largest trading partners.

>> there is a whole variety of issues here. how we best deal with china? i have been to china three times. i've been to iraq five times and afghanistan three times. as it relates to china in particular, they are obviously a large and rising power. we want our relationship with them to be positive and constructive, but let's not be a pollyannaish. we need to open our eyes as it relates to china's interest with the -- with the united states. i am for free trade. i think president obama should be pushing and advancing the colombian free-trade agreements and others. we have some individuals and entities around the world who

don't play by the rules. as that happens, the answer cannot be we are afraid to call that out, we are afraid to hold them to account of the systems and rules and remarks that have been established for such violations. it is hard to do that when china owns and controls one of the linchpins to our economy. we are so unable to control our own finances that we have to mortgage part of our future to places like china. when that happens, you give up control, not just of a portion of your economy. you give up control of a portion of your moral authority and influence around the world. it is really hard to tell off your banker. you will notice in the discussions with government officials and business officials and others, one of the reports back in their interactions with chinese leaders as compared to five, 10,

20 years ago is there is a new degree of assertiveness in tone and substance in those discussions. it is not unrelated to america's inability and perceived weakness to control of our own finances and be fiscally responsible and stop being a beggar nation when it comes to borrowing money from places like china. >> stockyards and packing plants rely heavily on immigrant labor. how do more restrictive immigration policies affect those industries which are very important to minnesota and the midwest? >> minnesota and other states have a huge economic sectors of food and food processing and of course the emigration issue and many others as well. i start with core values and principles in mind. one of the cornerstone pillars

of our country is that we are a nation based on the rule of law. you cannot have open and flagrant and sustained and significant violations of law, not just because we are legalistic but because when you have large numbers of people in the country ignoring, looking the other way, taking a pass, ducking the law as written, it is corrosive to our culture and our society, because then people began to disrespect violations and a lot in new and different ways. we have seen this many times and throughout history. one example is in new york city, if you allow people to pee on the sidewalks, they will. if you allow that to happen, soon you will get purse snatchings and then you will

have knives and then shoot outs and broken windows that don't it repaired, and soon you will have a lot of other problems including crack houses and the like. the point is, we cannot have a nation based on the rule of law and have this much behavior be in violation of the law. those two things have to be conformed, how to do that -- if you look at my record in minnesota and a number of things to help the effort, to take a more impressive enforcement posture, i think it is opprobrious to increase significantly the efforts to enforce the border. we need to have a secure and safe country. we need to have more integrity, and it can be done. it can be improved significantly and there is a variety of techniques for that including technology and person power and reinforcing the capability that we have. we voluntarily send troops to the arizona border as part of

operation jumpstart, and it worked. we need to sequenced the discussion with that first in mind to give confidence that we have that taken care of. if you want to be serious about reducing and moving towards the elimination of illegal immigration, you have to address it in large measure at the core of the reason why they are coming. they are coming for jobs. the screening process relating to immigration status at the point of hiring out its old, outdated, and filled with fraud. melissa comes and gives me her honduran passport or whatever it may be. i checked that she gave it to me and put it in the file. we cannot expect small-business owners to conduct an international investigation as to whether those papers are authentic. it is filled with fraud.

we need to move employers to assist them to quickly and easily establish at the point of higher where the person is or is not here illegally. those are prerequisites to the larger discussion. >> if you had been president one month ago, would you have signed or vetoed the "don't ask, don't tell" repeal bill? >> of publicly supported maintaining the policy and still do. one of the main rationales for repealing it is how does the military feel about a broadly? they survey the civilian leadership of the military and came back with a majority saying they did not think it would make

much difference, so they supported repeal. an interesting thing came out of that. when you looked at that survey or similar surveys for combat units and asked how they fell, and when you heard the testimony on capitol hill of the combat unit leaders and representation from the military, they were not in support of it. they had serious concerns about it as a related to unit cohesiveness and the testimony reflected a concern about the safety of the men and women in combat. i think we need to pay difference to that among other concerns. that is why i supported maintaining it. >> we are almost out of time. we have a couple of important matters to take care of. first, to remind our members and guests of future speakers. on january 26, we invite you all

to our evening event, a knight of solidarity with haitian journalists. proceeds from this fund raiser will raise much-needed funds to assist the haitian journalist and their families. yesterday was the one-year anniversary of the haiti earthquake. on february 3, we have chairman ben bernanke of the federal reserve speaking at a luncheon. on april 5 we have a commissioner of the irs who will address our luncheon. i would like to present our guest, and this will be a matching set, with your national press club mud. >> how do you beat that? >> thank you. [applause]

i am a minnesota native. this is my last lunch and i am hosting as the president of the national press club, and i am here to tell you, being president is great. i had the honor of being inaugurated last january. i graduated from the university of minnesota. i was presented with a brett favre jersey. given his year with the minnesota vikings, would you like to take it back with you? >> we appreciate brett favre s performance last year. >> the final question, you have said that you are contemplating a presidential bid. you have talked about springtime being when you would make your decision. given that you don't seem to want to announce it right here,

right now, what factors would keep you at this point from deciding to run for the white house? >> i should mention again -- by the way, i spent a fair amount of time in area he grew up in. one of his relatives owns a bar there. as it relates to running for president, i am seriously considering it. i have not made a final decision yet. it really comes down to two main considerations. one is the needs of the country. and what i can bring to the table in leadership and experience and perspective that i believe would move the country forward. it is obviously up personally impact will decision. i have a family, my wife and two daughters and dog that i love very much. i want to make sure as i make

this decision that it will not be burdensome to them, that they are equipped and prepared for what is to come if i do that as well. thank you again for listening and being here today. i appreciate it very much. >> former governor tim pawlenty said earlier today that he opposes raising the nation's debt ceiling and is urging republicans in congress to do the same. the debt ceiling is the legal limit at which the federal government can borrow money. at present, the credit limit is $14.30 trillion. on fox news sunday, the former governor said lawmakers should take action that prevents the government from defaulting on its obligations, then have a debate over what spending should be reduced. >> the federal government should not raise the debt ceiling. i believe they should pass legislation that allows them to sequence the spending to make

sure they don't default, and then have the debate about what other spending could be reduced. >> budget would not say to the republicans, do not raise the debt limit? >> that is right. i would take it one step further. sen the president a piece of legislation that authorizes the government to sequence the paying of its bill so that we don't have to have a debate about how to reduce the other spending. >> from today's "washington journal," this portion is 30 minutes. continues. host: our sunday round table with john feehery and karen finney. good morning. thanks for being with us. guest: good morning. host: let's move ahead to the speech 10 days from. -- from now. the debt ceiling vote is coming up later in the spring.

karen finney -- john feehery, what will the president say? guest: he will reflect on his speech in tucson, which i thought was a very good speech. i thought it it all the right notes. he will talk about what happened to the health care vote. will talk about how we need to work together. he will talk about h we is going to try to create jobs. those are the notes he is going to hit. guest: i agree with most of that, but i think it is an opportunity for the president to lay out his vision the next six months to one year. we're entering reelect. you have about six months before you start to get into campaign mode. it is an opportunity, using the framework of the speech in tucson, to talk about how we can, we as in democrats and

republicans, work for different common ground -- work to fd common ground. host: many of us feel that the debate was hijacked by fox news with the so-called death panels and the unending string of publican misinformation. i will be the first to say i thought the democrats could have done a better job correcting public misconceptions about health reform that linger to this day. guest: it is a myth to say people did not like the health ca bill because of fox news. they thought it would raise their premiums. if your small business owner, you think it will hurt job creation. they did not like the individual mandate. there were so many things that were bad abouthis health care bill. this is not a myth perpetrated

by the republicans and conservatives at fox news. it was a very bad bill. i think that is why republicans, pretty easily in the house, will vote and to repeal -- vote to repeal it. guest: they spend hundreds of millions of dollars. our recent poll shows that the majority of america do not believe there would have a choice to keep their current health insurance if they want to. people will be able to keep their current health insurance if that is wt they choose to do. the volume of misinformation out there -- if we had a conversation on the merits of the issue, that would have been different. republicans did not come forward with their own plan. they did a disservice to the american people. most statistics show that --

some conservative economists even -- show that any impact on jobs will be minimal. it could help current jobs because this is a growing sector of our economy. host: one of the key players is mitch mcconnell. this piece calls him a "master manipulator." he uses tactics that are head- obvious.g ly some describe him as having "the natural charisma of an oyster." guest: he is one of the most

gifted strategists i have ever seen. he is always smiling. he knows how to work strategy. knows how to make the news he wants to make without making news he does not want to make. i have a lot of friends who work in that office. i marvel at his ability to keep that caucus together. guest: anytime somebody can stay on message -- it's incredibly impressive. he gets on a message like, " the most important thing we can do is make sure this president is reelected," says it over and over, then moves on to the next message. "it did not" -- it is not because of a lack of stability that caused this tragedy.

a p it did a precen -- it did not set a precedent. bill crystal said the words "it did not" were not in the prepared text. they were apparently added on delivery by president obama. .

there is a huge difference of opinion between republicans and democrats. i do think we are going to have this clash of wills between the different sides in this congress and i do think that for a better compromise to get done, this debate has to be conducted

with civility. that is one of the things the president was saying in his speech, that this lack of stability did not cause this at all, but let's take this as an excuse to act more civilly with each other. arizona. >> let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame. let's use this occasion to expand a moral imagination, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instinct for empa thy and remind oselves of all the ways that our hopse and dres are bound together. >> we've been talking about what happened in tuscon over the last eight days. but where does the political

dialogue and debate go from here? >> it goes to the debate we've started on health care and the differences of opinion on whether this is a good law or whether it's a terrible law. and then really it goes to some serious substantive discussions about how do we extend the debt ceiling, how do we cut spending, how do we fund our troops in afghanistan and iraq. how do we make the critical decisions that are going to get this economy moving again. how do we deal with the different state gots that are going bankrupt? all of these things are huge decisions and require sophisticated argumentssophtica. and so i think that this is not easy. none of these decisions are going to be eas and i think that you're going to have passionate debate on both sides. hopefully, it will be civil and passionate. >> i hope it's civil and passionate but also pragmatic

and truthful and based on the facts. and when we talk about budget cuts, we had a discuss last year about additnal funds for the states. mr. boehner referred to special interest groups which was teachers, firefighters, well, you know what? on that horriblday last saturday thank god there were police officers and first responders there on the scene able to help. so when we talk about some of these budget cuts we have to understand d i think let's be honest that those are some of the things that get cut. we may still decide that's the right cut to make but let's acknowledge, let's not try to sort of hide the, do a shell game here and try to suggest that when we make a cut over here it doesn't have an impact over there. that would be the kind of straightforward discussion we can have. no doubt we're going to have to make cuts. e other thing i hope we have in terms of a civ debate, it's disturbing to me so far

when we talk about the discussion over the debt ceiling, it's who is going to get what, i'mgoing to get this from you rather than you're going to get that from me rather than the right decisions for the country. rather than if we give up this you'd better give up that. come on. >> i think what republicans are saying is we need a real plan to be fiscally responsible. anddom gogry really comes from the democratic side of the stuff. if you talk about the fact that these states and local governments are drowning in pension costs, you know, montgomery county for example, 60% of their budget is paid for pensions and that is all because of labor unions. and these are government employee labor unions. and yes, i think that the teachers and police officers play an extraordinarily important role. but those who are retired at age 55 and getting pensions for the rest of their life, that all sounds good in a growing economy. but when you have these state

and federal budgets going bankrupt, we have to make some real changes. and the -- i saw what happened with michelle rhee and the district of columbia and the teachers unions going after her. these are adult discussion that is have to take place. and the deem gogry is extraordinary. >> good morning. caller: the problems we're having in the united states, the reason we're divided so much is because we lie. we lie. >> host: who is lying? caller: everybody lies. republicans lie, democrats lie. everybody is lying. and i've been watching you for years. see, i'm from kentucky. i know mitch mcconnell, see. i've been watching him for

about 30 years. that man will say anything to get his agenda passed. anything. now, i'm from kentucky. been there all my life. i'm over 50. o what we have to do is quit lying and telling the truth. there isn't such thing as obama care. it's health care for american people. when mr. obama was disrespected at the last time of the union when the man said he was lying, he isn't lying. he isn't giving health care to no illegals. host: well, that point of true also goes to issue of democrats and republicans sitting together side by side, which is something that seems to be gaining steam. to that point and to his point about everyone lying, john. caller: h guest: well, let me address the first thing first.

i've been to several states of the union and over the last 20 years, it's kind of devolved into a competition about who can stand up or sit do you know the first and really taken away from the discussion of the president's giving. and i think that one of the best things about having the members interspersed is kind of i think will cut do you know on this cheer leading competition that happens. i think that -- i don't think that politicians lie. i think that they put the best gloss on their side soft story. and i do think that with 30-second commercials they hammer home on those. i think they distort on both sides and i think that's the nature of the political campaigns. and i agree with the caller that we need to truthfully face the problems that are hitting this country, especially wn it comes to spending because we scompli cannot afford to spend

the way we have without revenue and no one wants to raise taxes and the government is too big and spends tooch. so i think that's the kind of discussion. and facing the tru is important. guest: as long as we have that discussion with an honest and open way and acknowledge that some of the cuts that we're going to make will have a real impact on real lives. just going back to what john was saying about state and local governments. i agree. my mother used to be a labor negotiator and many local governments are just crushed under their oigations for pensions. at the same time, i feel like what we always seem to forget when we're having that conversation is that many of those deals were put together so that in lieu of cost of living increases or other types, that others in the private sector wereetting, public sector employees, this was kind of the trade-off. so if we're now going to say pensions are the problem, let's also remember that people did give something up to get to that point. and again, if we're going to

make cuts, it's going to have an impact. and one of the opportunities that president obama has, part of why he was so effective as a campaier, is we don't have to buy into thi either/or rhetoric of it's the end of the world, it's the best thing since sliced bread. wait, how do we fwigyur out the right decision for now. >> let me put a couple numbers on the table. the mber of residential home foreclosures. in 2008 it was 1.12 million. only one state had a budget shortfall, michigan. in 10 to 18 states. and finally the budget deficit in 2007 was $101 billionear to year. >> well, it's eraordinary. we aren one sense all to blame for the housing bubble

that occurred. and it's the government had a role. i think the private marketplace had a role. i think consumers had a role. and we are just dealing with that bubble. i mean, this is what's happened to us post collapse of the bubble is very typical of what happened back with the tuleyip bubble back in the 16th century. this is what happens. people get hurt. ate governments get hurt. the federal government gets hurt. and we have to climb our way out of it. and we're not out of it yet. that's why the foreclosures are still fairly high. too many people are filing foreclosures. guest: i think john is right too. on some level we all know we have to make cuts as long as it doesn't impact me. so as long as it's not my kids' school or my neighborhood. again, we're at a place where we have to have a very honest frank discussion about the kinds of cuts that need to be made and what those impacts are going to be.

host: o next call, good morning. caller: good morning. well, i am a young person, if you could say that. i'm 20 years old and i am a student of arizona state university. am also a recent transplant of louisville, kentucky. and just the state of politics these days seems to be very concerning tboth me and my demographic. i've been here for a few months, and last saturday ias at work when the shootings happened, and it was extremely disturbing to everyon everyone was so worried. there were natives from the reservation, they were worried about how it would reflect upon them. there were hispanics who were scared that it was the mexican mafia that might be behind it and might inspire, if you want

to say, a race war and when it turned out to be a mentally disturbed young man it was almost a relief because arizona is a tinder box right now and it is a very disturbing place to be. you can say all the things you want to say about mitch or the south or kentucky but honestly, it h no comparison to the state of politics here right now in arizona where people are just worried about the next little thing could set off something much larger. host: karen. guest: well, i think the caller is right. we can say that obviously the young man last week who was engaged in the sheeting clearly d long-term mental illness tha seems like for a variety of reasons was not caught at points where it should have been and could have been. that being said, i think many

of us were very concerned that some of the rhetoric that we heard in arizona particularly around some immigration and some of e other. and i think that's one of the things we have to be accountable for. if we take an issue and demagogue it and turn it into immigration reform is one we tend to do it the most where we deemize or scape gothe one group of people and play on people's fears that's the kind of climate we have. i thought it was interesting to note that daniel hernandez is a naturalized citizen. i would say i'm glad he is in the united states of america, i'm glad he is a naturalized citizen. but i would say there are wonderful people trying to become united states citizen so let's have a real conversation on that issue. host: we'll go to jim next, louisiana, with jo and karen. good morning. caller: good morning.

i got a question about this civility stuff. it seems like all of a sudden it's everybody should be hand in hand and if these republicans fall for this thing that's the democrats want to sift together, the only reason they want toit together is because they don't have as many representatives as the republicans. now, they didn't want this when they were in the majority because they had more people. guest: well, this morning jim called it a kumbaya moment and has put together some discussions. attorney general eric holder would be joined by darrell issa who has called ama one of the most corrupt administrations. also sonya society my or and elena kagen would sit between

jeff sessions and to keep things lively, michelle backman who wants people armed and dangerous to fight the energy bill shod sit with senator john kerry an energy bill author and mitch mcconnell would probably want to be near al franken who made funny faces during a debate. guest: where you sit does not change or should it where you stand on the issues. i think republicans are commited to their agenda which is mostly going to be getting us to be fiscally responsible again and create jobs in the private sector. and i think that the caller -- both callers make an important point. we have been as a country under great economic stress. this has impacted a lot of people in a lot of different ways in many parts of suburbia you e foreclosed homes all over the place. these homes were the embodiment

of the american dream and now people, it has become a nightmare. so we shouldn't under estimate how impassioned people feel when their livelihoods have been snuffed out. and i think we do face, especially the 20-year-old who just called, they face even more stark choices in the future. the debt we are putting on these kids, and also the how hard we make it for them to get into college and how expensive college is. all of these things add up. and the reason we need to have civil debate from washington is because washington needs to be a leader in providing civil debate in the rest of the country. but that doesn't mask the effect that people in the rest of the country are hurting and need some direction. guest: if i could add to that by saying we ought to have

civil debate, personally i don't think we should go to some kind of knee jerk reaction the other direction a pc movement. i ink it's important that weaf vigorous discussion and debate. we can disagree. john and i do it all the time. but there's a way that we can have that conversation and disagree that's constructive and that flushes out the issues rather than name calling or making it pirnl. that's where when we talk about the civility, that's where it goes over the edge. where we talk about -- and again scape goating groups of people. that's where it goes over the edge. but certainly that's not to sa both sides should not vigorously defend and present their sides of the argument. host: one of our viewers say this point. guest: that's a danger that comes in when washington gets too cozy and don't reflect the

views of the people back home. it becomes a party insider party versus the outsiders which is theest of the country. and the whole issue with the banking industry, really the tarp was centered by president bush continued by president obama. it was essential to making sure that people, the banking industry would stay open without a banking industry functioning you really do have complete anarchy in the country. that being said it was extraordinarily unpopular for democrats and republicans who voted for this thing. and that's that view irmakes an important point, whichs both parties have to reflect the values of their constituents and not just cut deals without understanding where their voters are coming from. host: roger, independent line. caller: first, i'd like to say that there was a strong point where they say that it's a

person's actions. republicans and democrats sitting side by side at the state of the unian address means nothing because for them to sit next to each other thinks exactly the same. i don't like the way you think, i don't like the way you think. i don't like you and you don't like me. me shaking hands for five minutes, smiling next to you two hours and acting like something has changed for one day isn't anything except what the american people have come to realize, that come to think of as policians just lie. we look at obama and i'm an african american man. so i'm giving him cudos as far as being the first african american president. but when he was standing up there talking about this is too

big to fail, this is too big to fail, he was at the same time saying that you're too small to matter. you're too small to matter. because i'm willing to give these people this money so we can stop systemic breakdown that the country and blah blah when the actual matter is that the economy is based on the small businessman, not the big corporate banking system. you know? so when you go out of youway to save people who aren't starving to begin with and allow people who are starving to change the score, then all the back slapping and yeah we're in it together now because this crucial thing happened in e country. host: i'm going to stop you there. you've put a lot of things on the table. guest: i think what roger is expressing the views of a lot

of people who are probably looking at this idea of ok they're going to sit together but what does that really mean. and again, i think it's meant to be a gesture. again, it does not mean that there are not very strong disagreements. but if we can keep those focused on the issues and not make them personal, i think that's important. and i think that's what people are trying to do. i hope it works. after 9/11 we had about a good three to four months of real compassion for one another in a way that we hadn't seen in a long time and then i began to dissipate. and i would hope this could be a moment tha ourselves and begin to bring it back. and the point john made. it's not just the economic trauma that americans have been suffering under but you can't underestimate the psychological impact of war. we have been at war for a very long time. and i think the combination of all those things i have to

believe it's been draining g g >> tomorrow on "washington journal, a preview of the congressional agenda. then, jon shure. after that, we will chat with heather peeler about her ribs roles in the martin luther king day of service. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> next students talk about politics and their future. dan prime minister david cameron at the british house of commons. then the election of reince priebus as the chairman of