being said that it was too long. what is happened here is that we have gone to the opposite extreme. i think that bill might of been two pages. clearly, insufficient for the complexity of the health-care problems. i think we are in a similar situation here. we have non-security spending. what is non-security spending? can there be a definition somewhere? >> i thank my friend for yielding and i did provide a definition earlier. >> your definition was that it will be defined by the committee? >> my definition is as we have outlined it here. discretionary spending other than defense, military construction, va, and homeland security. those four areas.

it is spending beyond those because we feel strongly about -- >> if i could follow it up, what does that mean in regard to customs and border protection, fbi? >> non discretionary spending -- excuse me, discretionary spending other than defense, military construction, va, and homeland security. obviously, we are not interested in gutting border security. >> that ain't going to happen. >> i thank the gentleman and would still argue there is a #zero programs related to security of. -- there is a number of programs related to security. i could tell you that the problems in mexico would be a lot worse if not because of our

joint efforts. when i look at line items like support to israel, it makes me concerned that people are affectively supporting cutting aid to israel by 15%. these are items that are related to security but they do not follow under the technical definition that the gentleman offered. unlike to ask our ranking member to elaborate on how he sees it -- i would like to ask our ranking member to elaborate on how he sees the definition. >> thank you. and i think that it would be wise to define this term in this resolution. and i don't think it clears up the overall problem because there is still no number in it but it would let us now what counts as security and what does not. put it right in the bill if

there is a definition. it does not correct that fundamental flaw. you just listed a number of things that clearly have security consequences from the fbi to some of our foreign military assistance programs that served on national interests. i mentioned a number of things and the chairman and i have worked on a number of things related to afghanistan and pakistan to try to make sure we do what we can to improve the situation there. that includes not just the military hardware component but also a lot of author efforts that are going on in afghanistan and pakistan in terms of our other anti-corruption efforts directly related to security. that is in the state department

budget. that is not under one of the protected areas mentioned. >> the protected areas or the non-protected areas? >> the aid to israel is in the non-protected areas. i am not sure exactly what the other 1 -- >> i thank the chairman for the colloquy that we entered into. i would hope that we consider putting some of those into writing, the more clarity we regard the better. the second set of questions i have all are with regard to this resolution, namely defense line items of our budget, i see there are no instructions. dick is the absence of instructions -- is the absence of instructions a freeze on the base line?

it is hard to ignore over 50% of the discretionary budget. what do you take from this resolution in terms of the necessary actions with regard to our national security? >> the gentleman is absolutely right. it provides absolutely no indication of what we would be doing in regard to defense spending. we know that this is an ongoing discussion about the number of programs for the department of defense. some areas need to be strengthened. some areas have been identified with room for reductions. without having the overall number here, it is very difficult for a member of congress when casting his or her vote. to know what the consequences of those are. we do not know what the appropriate tours will do but we would have some idea if we had

that overall number of what the consequences would be on defense or other issues that you raised. again, it is hard to have transparency when the major component of what this -- of what would make this transparent is not there. >> i would hope that with regard to this resolution we do not get caught up with this has to be a one-page thing. i understand why that would make a good sound bite. i think we can all agree that one page does not make good policy. we have a lot of issues. then, instructions about what to do in regard to security spending. i am sure everyone would agree there is some wasteful spending with what anybody would call

security. there are also programs that should be increased. i certainly encourage the budget committee to not rule out what is not included in this, namely looking at over 50 percent of discretionary spending. also, look at security items that may or may not fall within the definition of security that was given in the colloquy that i had with the chairman and hopefully would be protected in some way, shape, or form with this. >> thank you very much. as i prepare to yield, the first issue that my friend raised falls under the department of homeland security. that would clearly be a protective of item. i think it is also important -- he has never experienced in his term having served here and certainly our new members have not even the appropriations

committee. these issues are going to be debated, and we are not in the midst of the process right now. we know that this is a wonderfully interesting debate, throwing out all these potential challenges. they are going to be addressed. i expect it will be addressed in a bipartisan way as well. >> [inaudible] >> i am sorry? >> [inaudible] as to where those cuts will come from? >> once of the number is given to the appropriations committee, they will go through the process of deciding where to cut and where they want to add.

they will have to come in with compliance with whatever numbers are filed by the chairman of the budget committee. after that, there is an opportunity on the floor of the house to have that vote, but traditionally, members of this house have always participated in taking responsibility for accepting the aggregate number because it has such implications for all the things we have been talking about here. >> i appreciate that description. in my mind, setting up an aggregate number is where we need to be. you know, the constituents that i have, they say lived within a budget, set a budget and lived with and it. i came from local government where we had shortfalls and we could not do deficit spending

whether it was in law enforcement or parks and recreation or anywhere else. we had to make tough decisions, so when you say that we do not have a number today, we will have a number on wednesday. the real work comes at appropriations in regards to the areas you will wind up cutting to reach that number. to me, if we do not have a starting point, we have no point at all. i know the folks who elected me said, sheriff, you have experience with regards to the budget, but the system we have in washington, d.c., is broken. we are sitting here talking about an aggregate number that the cbo will present. they have the opportunity to take that number and look at each area to make decisions in

regards to cuts. at the end of the day, we are spending more money than we bring in. there will have to be tough decisions made. you know, i got elected to this office for a two-year term. my whole goal is to make sure that we meet the mandate of the people in regard to cutting what government spends in washington, d.c. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> i want to compliment you on helping to explain what the [unintelligible] has been going on here for the last hour and 20 minutes. because i think many people watching this do not really understand that this is done in two phases. and i just want to say to you, as a new member, i am very

impressed with you picking up on that right away and explaining it to everybody who is listening to this because up until this point i think our friends on the other side of the aisle have been acting like they have been doing a push poll. if you knew this person was a murderer, would you vote for that person? this is sort of the way this is being handled, so i want to thank you so much for making it clear. we are not voting on the appropriations bill. we are voting on the number that is going to be the parameter under which the appropriations bill would come later. i appreciate that. i think we need to emphasize that over and over again, so thank you for making it so clear. >> i appreciate mr. van hollen for making it clear. >> thank you.

thank you for your points. i think people who have been watching this will understand it is a two-part process. no one is arguing is should not continue to be a two-part process. we do have to make tough decisions. no. 2, there should be a starting point. and that is what we are talking about today, taking responsibility for what the starting point will be. in the sheriff's department, you set a budget, a number, and you lived with it. if somebody asked you to operate without that number, it would be hard for you to decide whether that was in a corporate level to meet the needs of the citizens. that is all we are saying here. i want to be clear. the congressional budget office is not going to provide the number that will go into the resolution. that is not what they are going

to do. the cbo is going to provide the base line. it will be the chairman of the budget committee who gets to decide on his own to set the level of spending. the only point we are making is -- we have heard from the majority as of wednesday he will be able to come up with the number that is the starting point. all we are saying is we should all take responsibility for voting on what that starting point should be because it makes a big difference to people throughout this country what that number will be, so why not wait 24 hours if the baseline numbers from the cbo then have mr. ryan in consultation put that number in and we will vote on it? that is the way it works when we want to take accountability for the budget. that is all. >> actually, the baseline number

is already set, and that is 2008. that will be our baseline number. that is not a number that we can change. the cbo is going to tell us what that baseline number is. that is going to be our starting point, whatever that number is. i think that will be a good point to be at. when we were told to cut from the appropriate authority, they would need to say you need to dollars.umber of the bottom line is we had to continue service. i cannot deliver the same level of service with less money. i will tell you that state governments and local governments have found out that, you know what? you really can't.

there may be some changes but you have to go back -- you really can. what is your core mission in the capital? that is what we have to find common ground on. i will yield. >> let me give you one example of consequences. with her we go there or not, i do not know -- whether we go there or not, i do not know. let's use a program which allows for people who cannot afford, and literally cannot afford, to heat their home. that program with the support of republican and democrat members have increased -- has increased from 2008, from $2.5 million to

$5 million. assuming all things being equal, that we return to $2.5 million, there are people who have received the benefits of the program who are no longer receiving those benefits because the money will not be there. that is why i say there are political land mines out there. saying i am going to cut something does not mean the interest groups are not going to show up. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> i think there has been a lot

of talk today about symbolism and a theater when it comes to gop proposals whether they are on the floor or in this committee. one word is left out. that word is "deem." if a budget was deemed passed last year, i would think that would be arbitrary. i would think that would be a part of a no-budget process, which the chairman has already explained. i think that has no defined terms. i would think that also has no line items. i don't even know if it is a piece of paper. whatever "deemed" means. it has been forgotten but it should not be forgotten because that is the way the process works. we are trying to put together proposals.

if it has a number in it, somebody dragged it out of the air. they just ask a few people, maybe, i don't know. and republicans are working towards our real policy changes, controlling spending. we have to because all of these programs we are talking about are being done on borrowed money. two years ago, we bought a car, and then we'd borrow the money to make the payments. this year, we are borrowing the money to make the payments on the borrowed money for the car. somehow, someway, we have to stop. >> you make a point, and i take your point regarding the the deeming process.

were you aware there was a number? >> yes. it is just as arbitrary as any other number. this one is more fixed because there is a process in which we will attain that number. >> not only was there a number, but there was a vote, and i think that was important to note. members of the floor had a chance to vote. >> let me say that this comes back -- there was not a vote. what happened was section for of the resolution deemed passage of the rule, and this was included. there was no separate vote prett. >> shaky very much, -- thank you very much, mr. van hollen.

that will close at the hearing portion of this measure. >> i moved that the committee report the resolution with a favorable recommendation. >> arthur amendments? >> i move to amend the resolution. my amendment makes changes to clarify the intent of the resolution. it clarifies we will reduce spending to 2008 levels or less. second, it strikes the terms from the resolution. we are going to reduce spending to 2008 levels or less. >> you have heard the gentleman's motion. at the outset, let me say that this it does the things that we outlined at the beginning.

it eliminates the word " transition" and the shared goal we seem to have of inspiring to get to an aggregate level that would be below the 2008 levels which i think is important. some areas we may not be able to do that. this begins the process of moving us in a very positive direction. i believe these clarifying provisions are helpful. i had a discussion yesterday with the speaker and others in our leadership and i believe a very thoughtful proposal which gives help to clarify the measure. >> i think you very much, mr. chairman. for whatever reason, that has not clarified things for me. 2008 or less -- how much less? what does that mean? we still do not have a number.

it seems to me that not withstanding your attempt, we do not know what we are dealing with here. this is still very arbitrary and up in the air. i do not find this particularly clarifying with all due respect. >> i think the definition of "less" is not as much. when you look at the cycle of the last two years, $3.50 trillion in fiscal spending. $8 billion or so for stimulus funding. $1 trillion to $2 trillion it in entitlement spending. if we continue to focus on

[unintelligible] >> i am all for cutting spending where we find ways to. no one is arguing about the need to cut spending. it is about how much to cut spending. i will remind you that when bill clinton left office, he left office with a surplus. and medicaid prescription drug bill that was not paid. we are not paying for these wars. >> the cost of the war in afghanistan this year alone is a far more than the annual cost of health care bill, which by the way the cbo says will reduce the deficit. i am assuming that the numbers are accurate. >> on top of all that you just

articulated and explained, what we are going to do is dig a deeper hole and throw another $2.20 trillion on top of that. we have to stop -- >> stop increasing -- once] talking at >> if i understand the definition of what would be subject to cuts, entitlements or off of the table. >> absolutely. >> we are not talking about entitlement spending here at

all. all i am simply saying is that, you know, your amendment in my opinion does not offer the clarification that all of us were expressing concern about. it is the lack of specificity, the lack of -- >> a number. >> we do not know the number. i am opposed to it. >> any further discussion? [inaudible] >> thank you. and i know in our new spirit of bipartisanship you intended to -- >> i am sorry. >> i just want to point out that when he brings up the fact that there was a surplus when president clinton left, i always want to point out to my friends

across the aisle it was because republicans were in control of the congress. when we have budget deficits when president bush left, it was because democrats were in control of the congress. >> let's fast-forward to the day before yesterday when the majority leader says we are not in control of congress. i don't know how we flipped of the scripps so much around here -- i don't know how we flipped the scripts so much around here. i just would like to help my colleague from florida since he was kind enough to answer my response, to ask him to look at this particular resolution. that is in the third paragraph, the second sentence.

>> any further discussion? the ay'es have it. >> roll call please. [inaudible] [laughter] >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> the clerk will report the total. >> i have an amendment to the resolution. i moved that the committee added a new section that would require a vote by the full house before

any allocation inserted in the congressional record by the chair of the committee on the budget -- before the budget becomes effective. >> is there any discussion? >> mr. chairman, it creates the illusion that the house is voting to reduce spending to fiscal year 2008 levels, when in actuality, it gives the chairman of the budget committee unprecedented authority to decide spending levels for us without facing a vote in the house of representatives. this was already granted in a rules package which paved the way to add $5 trillion to the deficit. why don't republican colleagues simply reveal their plans and allow the house to take a vote? republicans criticized us for sidestepping the budget process. now the majority is completely

comfortable with avoiding a house vote altogether. this amendment would simply allow the house to take a vote on fiscal year 2011 spending levels, providing the accountability and transparency of our colleagues have promised time and time again. i cannot imagine anybody watching this who would think it is a radical idea that we actually take a vote on these spending levels. that is what this amendment does. " i am going to urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. we obviously have begun a process. for the first time since 1974, we went to the last session of congress without a budget. it is never been done before. i am determined that it does not

happen again. we are where we are. the reason that we had to take the very unusual steps that we did it, providing the authority to the chairman is because there was no budget. obviously, we are beginning with 2008 levels. there is a message that we got, and that message resonates. we need to get serious right now about reducing the size, scope, reach, and control of the federal government. that is what this resolution will do with the kind of clarity that is necessary. any more discussion? those in favor? the no's have it. >> mr. chairman -- >> made their car call the roll? clerk call the roll?

[inaudible] >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> the clerk will report the total. is not agreed to. we will now vote on the motion -- are there other amendments? if there are others, we would be happy to entertain them. >> i would like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record an article from [inaudible] >> without objection, the

article will be put into the record. those in favor will say aye. the aye's have it. the motion is agreed to. we will now adjourn the original meeting and will now pursue the consideration of the rule. >> i move that the committee grant the resolution to reduce spending through a transition to non-security spending at fiscal levels for the year 2008. the rules provides that the amendment and the nature of this substitute recommended by the committee on rules now printed in the resolution shall be considered as adopted.

finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit the resolution with or without instructions. >> you have heard the motion from the gentleman from dallas. any amendments? >> i have an amendment. i called that the committee called an open rule for the consideration of the resolution so that the house has an opportunity for input on what i believe is vague and an unclear resolution. >> discussion? >> i hope in particular that we would then be able to talk about some of the defense and security items. which the resolution is silent on. this gives our committee an incentive to start looking for cuts on the non-security side, but they do not have a similar incentive to find wasteful

defense spending. i hope that in the part of the discussion as i am confident that my friend's motion will pass. >> i would say that it is a very, very interesting and desirable goal to pursue reductions where possible in defense spending. we know the secretary of defense has already come forward to propose them. even though -- i hope the gentleman understands why it is not included in this resolution because we are at war and we do not want to do anything to undermine the ability of our men and women in uniform to do the work that they are doing. that in no way means we will not be focusing on doing everything we can to reduce wasteful spending in its defense, home and security, military construction, and those areas that are there. i appreciate the comments.

any further discussion? >> i appreciate the spirit of the amendment. i appreciate the commitment to bring more open rules to the process. you need to have that open rule process. i am looking forward to the appropriation process. going back to my respect to the chairman and the way he has brought this bill, the last bill was a two-page bill that everybody could read and understand. this is a one-paragraph bill that everybody can read and understand. i will be voting no on your amendment. the process needs to be open and understandable. i would be happy to yield. >> things can be confusing when

there are too long, but things can also be confusing when they are too short. part of my frustration with this is there was no written definition. we do not have that in writing. we are not talking about adding a 500-page bill. we are talking about a page or two that would define things. there can be a danger of not defining things and things being too short. >> i am happy to be airing on the side of to shore than two long. >> i am going to urge a no vote bond the amendment -- no vote on the amendment. we are providing that to the

minority. i think it is important to note that we were never once allowed it in motion to commit with instructions to provide so i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. will the clerk call the roll? >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> the motion is not agreed to. further amendments? >> earlier when mr. van hollen was here and you were

responding, you were commenting that the appropriations process would be transparent and open. i am sure that by that you meant not just the appropriations process but other committees would have a similar undertaking. >> what i was referring to was the action on the house floor. obviously, every committee has an open process. those are the rules of the house. members are free to offer amendments. what i said is he has not experienced open rules since he has been a sitting member of congress. we will be having more open rules and we will shift away from what we had during the last two sessions of congress, that being a less than open process when it comes to the appropriations bills themselves.

>> i have an amendment. i move that the committee provide any unnecessary waivers for amendments offered by mr. van hollen. i am asking that the ranking member of the committee on the budget be allowed as the top democrat on the budget committee to offer an alternative. >> like i said, while we were in the minority for four years, we were never offered an opportunity to commit with instructions such as this. we are going to be providing that opportunity. if we pass this rule on the house floor, we will move toward a more open process than what we have had in the past few years. those in favor? clerk, call the roll.

>> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. the motion is not agree to. those opposed? clerk, call the roll. >> aye. a >> ye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> no.

>> no. >> aye. the motion is agreed to. i will be handling the ruling resolution on the floor. let me just clarify for members, the rule will allow for consideration, an hour of debate on that, and then an hour of consideration on the resolution itself on the floor. >> the minority would like to inform you [inaudible] >> we look forward to those. any further questions or comments at all? thank you all very, very much. i hope you all have a good retreat. the rules committee stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> this afternoon, a town hall discussion on the u.s.-canada relations. speakers include canada's ambassador to the u.s., today at 4:00 p.m. eastern. >> tuesday, president obama delivers the state of the union address to a joint session of congress. live coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern with our preview program, followed by the speech at 9:00. then the republican response from paul ryan of wisconsin, and your phone calls and reaction. life on c-span.

you can also -- live on c-span. >> from today's "washington journal," -- joining us to talk about it, james pendle in man chester, their political director. why so early? >> well, we're just a year away from when we believe our new hampshire primary will be. of course our secretary of state sets the date but the tentative date is february 14. republicans are gathering today to elect a new state chairman. this includes 500 delegates around the state. these are the hard core of activists. while that's not the full picture, they are certainly a good chunk in a state as small as ours. so we decided to poll these

folks as to where they're thinking in terms of the presidential race, which to be perfectly blunt is just beginning. so this is a good snap shot to see what kind of people they're looking at on our list in the straw poll. we have 20 names and of course we also put and underline we can put someone else. it's very inclusive. not meant to be exclusive. just to get an early sense. we're also asking the 500 delegates what issue they they believe is the highest priority for the next president. we have conservatives and republicans who believe certain different tenants. they believe them all. whether about a strong national security, whether it be more of a social conservative agenda, about cutting taxes or deficit or debt. we just want them to rank a top one to see where this conversation may lead us in the next year. host: theths let's talk about some of the names that we've heard bandied about as far as

this position and see how they might fit into the straw poll. let's start with mitt romney. >> mitt romney is somewhat of a front runner. say mike huckabee would need to win. the expectations game. the presidential primary process as you know is all about the expectations game. did you exceed or meet or disappoint on them. mitt romney is expected to do very well. the last time john mccain was in the race and he was something of a favorite son in the state. he won so well in 2000, he won again in 2008. with mccain out of the way, mitt romney is something of a front runner. not only does he have large name recognition, new hampshire is in the boston television market. but he owns a house in new hampshire as a vacation house. he spends a lot of time here

and polls have shown consistently that he is by far the front runner in our state. so he's going to have a pretty strong polling in the straw poll or she going to have answer a lot of question wls his strong or not. host: is sara palin on this list? >> of course she is. in terms of the early primary states, if you include iowa and south carolina, i'm not sure how much we're going to include nevada this year although they will have an early caucus, but in terms of those three states, new hampshire seemed to be her weakest. this is a place that has not liked her all that much if you look at favorability ratings and she has not been to the state since october of 2008 whence she was a vice presidential candidate. but some have suggested she does have a problem here. but given that you have a multicandidate primary or

multicandidate straw poll today, that kind of plays into her strength as being such a polarizing figure. she could do well but she hasn't spent any time to try to cultivate any of these activists. host: we see more and more of tim paul enty now as far as this topic is concerned. how does he do in that part of the state? caller: that's a good point. this is going to be his first test. he's been to the state. he and rick santorum, the former senator have been here more than anyone else, probably eight times. and tim is coming back on monday and tuesday to the state. this is going to be a -- talking about a first test to see if any of these trips are translating into any support. these are small, house parties, coffees and lunches. but they're coffees and lunches and house parties with these members. so if you stop the person on

the street, that may not be a fair indication. but for these 500 folks, these are the folks that they're calling. host: tell us about how the process will work today. caller: well, the straw poll begins around 9 or 10, depending on how the registration is going. it will end around 2 as they begin to vote for their own state chairmen. they have some local races just for in terms of the republican state committee. at that point we will go into a room. we will add up the tally and then we will announce them. host: james, the political director of wmurtv of the website, plit difficult scoop. if you want to find out more. and then you will announcnce later this a

>> and this weekend, two speeches. a former republican senator from pennsylvania and republican rep michele bachman. >> your name is now in the president to conversation. you are aware of that i am sure. >> i know it is shocking when a girl goes to i waiowa. i am here to be a part of that conversation for 2012. there has been no decision about candidacy but i want to be a part of the conversation. >> watch her speech in its entirety tomorrow on "road to the white house." in his weekly address, president

obama calls for opening up foreign markets to american goods and services in order to grow the economy. he is followed by the republican weekly address from the a u.s. senator, calling for action to repeal the health-care law following this week's house vote. >> i met with china's president hu jintao at the white house this past week. we are now supporting more than $100 billion a year to china in goods and services. as a result, we will be increasing u.s. exports to china by more than $45 billion. china's investment in america by several billion dollars. most importantly, these deals will support some 235,000

american jobs, including about the manufacturing jobs. that goal is why i fought so hard to negotiate a better trade deal to south korea, a deal with unprecedented support from business and labor that would support more than 70,000 american jobs. that is why i traveled to india last fall to pave the way for new deals for american businesses. these it may sound like statistics, but yesterday, i saw what that means first hand when i travel to a general electric plant in new york. it is manufacturing goods and services from a deal that resulted from that trip. good jobs at good wages, reducing -- producing american products to the world. ge has been building an advanced

battery manufacturing plant and other state-of-the-art facilities that are resulting in hundreds of new american jobs and contributing to america's global economic leadership. leading the world in innovation, that is how we will create jobs today. that is how we will make america more competitive tomorrow. while i was in new york, i announced jeff immelt has agreed to head up our new council on jobs and competitiveness. the purpose is to find ways to grow our economy by investing in our business is here at home. i am confident that they will generate good ideas about how we can whisper hiring, 88 are workers, and attract the best jobs in businesses -- how we can

spur hiring, aid our workers, and attract the best jobs in businesses are run the country. that should not discourage us. i know we can win that competition. i know we can't compete any other nation on earth. -- i knoww we can out- compete in the other nation on earth. thanks, everybody, and have a great weekend. >> i am a doctor and united states senator and and pleased to talk to you today from my home town. across our country, americans remain shocked andabout the recent violence in arizona. they remain in our thoughts and

in our prayers. earlier this week, the newly elected house of representatives immediately kept its promise to the american people by voting to repeal the health care spending a lot. now, it is the senate's turn. the president party has wasted millions of your dollars trying to persuade you to support this law. they have failed. a recent poll showed the majority of americans still want this law repealed, and the reasons are clear. ask yourself. are you better off or worse off now that the health care bill has been on the books for almost a year? remember, the president promised that the law would significantly reduce your cost. if you get health insurance through your job, are you confident you can keep it? we have already learned that the new law forces many employers to keep coverage or eliminate

workers. coverage does not equal good care. it could get a lot harder for americans to find a doctor or hospital to go to. the law cut $500 billion from medicare to start a whole new washington program. seniors are not the only americans targeted by the president's new law. small-business owners have to file burdens and tax forms for basic business expenses such as iphone and internet services, office supplies. this increases the cost of owning and operating in small business. each and every day, more people pay the price obamacare's mountain of mandates. i continue to hear from americans. the only way to get out of this law is to have friends in high

places like in the president owned administration. while the administration is forcing most americans to accept the law, 1.5 million americans now get a free pass for special washington waivers. many of them have gone to labor unions. well, if you do not have a lawyer or a lobbyist connected to this administration, you are out of luck. it is not the american way. as a doctor, i have taken care of families for more than a quarter of this century. i know this lot is bad for patients and providers, and it is bad for tax payers. as a doctor, i am disturbed that the law will require more irs agents to investigate you so you buy more insurance. your health care decisions

should be decided in your doctor's office, not a washington office. nothing should come between you and your doctor, not a government bureaucrat, not in insurance company bureaucrat, nothing. republicans will fight to repeal this law and replace it with senate reforms like making it illegal for americans to buy health insurance from companies in other states. and restore an american's freedom over their own health- care decisions. thanks to the vote in the house of representatives, we are now one step closer to victory in the fight for a health-care policy that puts americans first. not washington. our job will not be done until we repealed and replaced this bad law. thank you for listening. >> this afternoon, a town hall discussion on u.s.-canada relations.

speakers included canada's ambassador to the u.s.. that is today at 4:00 p.m. eastern. >> i have to practice staying alive and preparing to die at the same time. >> sunday, our guest is an author and columnist and contributing editor, christopher hitchens. >> there are treatments i concede that are just out of reach, which are both encouraging and annoying. >> sunday on c-span. >> now, richard trumka gives suggestions on the upcoming state of the union speech. this is about 50 minutes.

>> my company was one of the money then rushed to the world trade senator after the first plane hit. i am honored to be here to introduce a afl-cio president richard trumka. on behalf of all working people across the country, which we need more than ever today, thanks to ronald reagan who started this union-busting. i've been telling my story to anyone that would listen. i am in and out of hospitals from my exposure in the weeks and months after september 11. i was in washington when the 9/11 health-care bill finally passed. we finally succeeded. the combined hard work of working men and women paid off, especially a half the budget afl-cio members. it took too long.

my fought -- my son is a firefighter. my daughter is a teacher at. both are public workers struggling to take care of their families. the struggle for working men and women is not over. we need a voice, and we need fighters who will step up to the powers that be and force them to do the right thing. that is with the afl-cio is doing led by our president, richard trumka. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] firefighter stan trojanowski,

who responded to a 911 call from the world trade center moments after the terrorist attacks in 2001. as america grieved, stan returned to the scene day after day, first in the hopes of rescuing those trapped in the rubble, then to recover remains of those who had perished. today, he continues to deal with the terrible aftermath of that terrible day, as he deals with the toll his bravery and commitment have taken on his health. last month, stan and other firefighters, police officers and construction workers who answered the call that daywho ran into the fire and into the dust cloudsposed a question to our elected leaders -- what kind of country are we?

for seven years they had pressed for a law that would do one simple thingtake care of the heroes who got sick because of their selfless acts, who suffered because they said yes, without hesitation, when america needed them. but for seven years, our leaders would not say yes in return. congratulations, stan, for finally succeeding. [applause] the question of how our political system treated our 9- 11 heroes like stan resonates still in this new year -- what kind of country are we? a country of isolated individuals fending for themselves or a country with

shared values and a shared vision? a country with scant resources, fading glory and no choices? or a blessed nation with the potential to do right by its people and be a leader in the world? the conventional wisdom in washington and in statehouses around the nation is that we cannot afford to be the country we want to be. that could not be more wrong. we can and should be building up the american middle class, not tearing it down. we should be honoring the heroes of 9-11, not turning them into scapegoats for a partisan political messaging operation. we should act like the wealthy, compassionate, imaginative

country we are, not try to turn ourselves into a third-rate, impoverished "has-been." the labor movement hasn't given up on america, and we don't expect our leaders to either. last friday in cincinnati, ella hopkins and a group of her co- workers went out on a frigid night to stand in front of city hall. ella is a child care worker and i'm so glad that she is here today. [applause] she takes care of young children when their parents are at work. she nurtures our youth so they have the support they need and are in a safe environment to learn and grow. and for doing that job, the

important job of caring for our children, the state of ohio pays her, after taxes, about $450 a week. she stood in the cold last friday to ask her new governor, john kasich, to respect her freedom to have a union to improve her life and those of her co-workers. here's what kasich said -- state workers like her are "toast." you see, in the same week that he increased the salaries of his senior staff by more than 30 percent, the governor has made cracking down on ella and other home care and child care workers his first priority. stan and ella are my american heroes, the hard-working

everyday champions who make america great, and their lives illuminate the choices facing our nation as we enter a fourth year of economic crisis. the choice between coming together as a nation or turning on each other. the choice, as dr. martin luther king once said, between chaos and community. the choice between greed and solidarity. but most of all, stan and ella remind us that while our political leaders wrestle with these questions, america's working people already know the answer. we are a nation that still has choices. we don't need to settle for stagnation and ever-spiraling

inequality. we don't need to hunker down, dial back our expectations and surrender our children's hope for a great education, our parents' right to a comfortable retirement, our own health and economic security, our nation's aspiration to make things again, or our human right to advance our situation by forming a union if we want one. all these things are within the reach of this great country. last week in tucson, president obama called upon us to build a future that "lives up to our children's expectations." we cannot build such a future as isolated individualseither --

either morally or economically. working people know we can build that future only if we act together to put america back to workto educate our children, to build a clean energy future, to build a 21st century america. but here in washington, we live in an alice-in-wonderland political climate. we have a jobs crisis that after three years is still raging, squeezing families, devastating our poorest communities and stunting the futures of young adults. yet politicians of both parties tell us that we can, and should

-- do nothing. that is giving up on america. and as we meet here today, the republican leaders in the house, who campaigned on the promise of jobs, are instead using their first days in office to take away health care gains from 30 million families. we want to believe america is a generous and just country, willing to give everyone here a fair chance. how can that be squared with allowing intolerance and fear to slam shut the school house door on the dream act students? i'm so glad that some of the dreamers are here today. [applause]

>> we have a tax system that everyone knows is grossly unfairallowing private equity billionaires like pete peterson to pay 15 percent rates while middle-class americans pay 25 percent. we just agreed to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to the rich. yet washington behaves as if record economic inequality is a force of nature, and says we cannot fund the basic functions of governmentlet alone invest to build the infrastructure of the future. we are still a wealthy country, with per capita income that puts us in the very top tier

internationally. but in the last 20 years, 56 percent of all income gains went to the top 1 percent of americans, and more than a third went to the top one-tenth of one percent. that is one person out of every thousand taking a third of all income gains here in the united states. meanwhile, the bottom 90 percent made do with only 16 percent of income gains. that is why we all feel so poor -- because too much of our national income went to too few people. in this topsy-turvy world, the same leaders who fought so valiantly to cut taxes for the

wealthy turn right around and lecture us about the imminent bankruptcy of social security and medicare. so let me get this straight -- we need to slash retirement and health benefits for the elderly because we are on the brink of fiscal crisis. but we can afford to squander hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the super-rich. only at the mad hatter's tea party does this make sense. the truth is social security is financially one of the healthiest institutions in american life, and the most essential to our families' economic security. when we are reduced to competing to cut spending instead of deciding how to

compete in the world economy and secure our future, then we are having the wrong conversation. outside the looking glass, the american people would never forgive their leaders for cutting social security or medicare. [applause] sadly, the chairs of the president's deficit commission urged just that, as part of a package of proposed deep spending cuts and tax changes that would hit middle-class families hard. this approach, so popular in washington, would lock us into a japanese-style lost decade.

we have just been through one lost decadewhen america's standard of living fell, when our wealth shrank, when millions lost their homes, when young people could not find work. america cannot afford another lost decade. china is not having a lost decade. germany is not having a lost decade. because those countries have acted decisively on jobs and public investment, their economies are prosperous. germany, with its strong unions, robust public sector, good wages and strong social protection, has an unemployment rate half ours. what should be crystal clear

right now is that the united states is falling behind in the global economy, and not because we lack the skills, the resources, the innovative drive or the entrepreneurial spirit to succeed. no, we are falling behind because we are governing from fear, not from confidence. and we have let our transnational business titans convince our politicians that our national strength lies in their profits, not our jobs. we have failed to invest in the good-wage growth path that is essential to our survival. we are a big country, not a niche player. we live in a world in which there are two kinds of

successful big countries -- big, poor countries with low wages that organize themselves for low-cost exports, like china and india, and big developed countries with high-skilled workforces that invest in their infrastructure and in their people, that protect their people's rights on the job and have strong social protections, like germany and japan. a country that has combined the best of each category is brazil, which has enjoyed phenomenal growth, increasing equality and growing stature on the world stage under the leadership of my friend and brother president lula, whose

term has just ended. but too many of our politicians are doing the opposite of what works -- destroying our public institutions, crushing working people's rights and living standards, and failing to invest in education. we know this model, and we know where it leadscatastrophe. this misguided and shortsighted approach is not just a washington problem. in state capital after state capital, politicians elected to take on the jobs crisis are instead attacking the very idea of the american middle class,

the idea that in america, economic securityhealth care, a real pension, a wage that can pay for collegeis not something for a privileged few, but rather what all of us can earn in exchange for a hard day's work. november's election has unleashed a coordinated effort to block the path to the middle class with an attack on workers' rights. when i say an attack on workers' rights, i am not talking about demands for concessions in tough times by employers. wise or not, such demands are a normal part of collective bargaining. i am talking about the campaigns in state after state, funded by shadowy committees created in the wake of citizens united, aimed at depriving all

workerspublic and private sectorof the basic human right to form strong unions and bargain collectively to lift their lives. this attack is fueled by the enthusiasm, and the financial support of people like lloyd blankfein, the ceo of goldman sachs, and rupert murdoch, the billionaire publisher behind fox news. both participate in a committee formed to raise business funds to attack public employees, based on the proposition that firefighters and nurses and medical orderlies are overpaid. it's a funny thing, when the firefighters arrived at the world trade center on september

11th and started that long climb up the stairs to rescue the bond traders trapped on the upper floors, it didn't occur to any of them to call up and ask, "what's it worth to you for us to come and get you? " so how did we come to the point where our country's ruling class thinks that firefighters like stan and teachers and nurses are the problem, and people like lloyd blankfein and rupert murdoch are the solution? >> i do not know if you saw this today. the front page of "the new york

times." and $93 million windfall from the crisis. and in some state capitals we see not just an attack on the middle class, but an attack on economic rationality itself. what else can explain governors like mitch daniels in indiana and scott walker in wisconsin rejecting high-speed rail through their states? turning their backs on jobs, turning their backs on their own state's future. betting on misery and anger, rather than hope and progress and common sense. george orwell once said it was fashionable among the really rich to bemoan the materialism

of workers. i can't fathom what spiritual values drive billionaire pete peterson to make more millions by doing a leveraged buyout of hilton hotels and then trying to take health care away from the people who clean the rooms for $12 an hour. but i know from my own experience in the coal mines that when hilton workers stand up for their health care it's not about moneyit's about their families' livesthe difference between lives dogged by fear and lives of dignity and security. and i don't know what deep moral force drives lloyd blankfein of goldman sachs and

jamie dimon of jp morgan chase to fund attacks on firefighter'' pensions, but i know why firefighters and construction workers have always needed early retirementbecause you can't run into burning buildings in your sixties carrying a hundred pounds on your back. too old to work and too young to die has real meaning when you don't have a goldman sachs partnership to live off. if it is really true that we cannot afford to make the investments we need to sustain a middle class society, then we

will end up a winner-take-all society, a faded casino that pays a big jackpot now and then, but is headed inexorably -- inevitably downhill. for the privileged few on the winning end of america's explosion of inequality, inaction may be a tolerable state of affairs. but working people, our members and the vast majority of people here in america and all around the world who cannot live off their investments, face an intolerable future unless we acta future of protracted unemployment, stagnant wages, an insecure old age, rising

energy prices and environmental deteriorationa kind of 21st century peonage to the lords of finance and energy and global supply chains. the debate about our future begins and ends concretely with the question of jobs. last year's election was fundamentally about jobs, and i believe the 2012 election will be fundamentally about jobs. america wants to work. 11 million people that are unemployed want to work. one in three households has had

someone out of work this past year. those who are working are doubling up to do the jobs of those who have been fired. that's why we have seen wild productivity gains. those gains aren't a measure of investment or innovation, they are a measure of injustice, of workplaces where people do more work for less moneyor where the -- money, or where the guts of the production process have been outsourced to another country. meanwhile, the biggest and wealthiest american companies are sitting on trillions of dollars in assets, not investing, not creating jobs, not taking risks. we see companies like the pulte

group that received millions of dollars to build homes and create jobs. where are those homes? where are those jobs? those are the questions angel rangel, a sheet metal worker from phoenix, arizona, will be asking pulte at a conference right down the street later this morning. i'm pleased that angel is here with us. please stand up. [applause] people who live in wonderland may not have noticed, but there is a lot of work to be done here. while one in five construction workers is looking for work, we have a $2.2 trillion old-school infrastructure deficit. we need to invest trillions more to build the 21st century

infrastructure necessary for our nation's and our planet's futurehigh-speed mass transit, smart utilities and universal high-speed broadband. and we should be hiring more great teachers at every level, not firing them because our states are out of cash. infrastructure is not just energy and transportation, it is a quality education for all americans, the great inheritance of universal public education that we are squandering by attacking our teachers and defunding our schools. and yet we can't seem to fund simple infrastructure maintenance like the surface transportation act reauthorization, a bill with support from business and labor, from both democrats and

republicans. i haven't been to china, though i hope to go soon. but i am told that when you fly to shanghai, you land in a brand new airport, you have high-speed broadband access from the moment of your landing and you can get on a high-speed train in the arrival terminal that will take you directly to downtown shanghai at over a hundred miles an hour. this set of experiences is simply not available in any city in the united states. we invest less than half what russia does in infrastructure as a percentage of gdp, less than one-third of what western europe does.

nowhere do we meet today's global standard. and that standard is not sitting still. if we want to have a great future as a nation, we cannot sit by and watch the future happen elsewhere and not here. to join the 21st century, we need to start funding a serious and sustained public investment in infrastructure now, as president obama called for last labor day. the federal reserve board should allocate a portion of the bond purchasing authority under its quantitative easing program to buy job-creating infrastructure bonds. over the medium and long term, we could pay for the public investments needed just by eliminating the bush tax cuts for the wealthy and enacting a

very small financial speculation tax of 0.05% -- so small to be of no concern to any real investor, but enough to raise more than $100 billion in revenue a year. the labor movement has learned something from the last two years about jobs and investment. we can't count on the political process here in washington to get the job done. so we are engaging with business, public leaders and communities around the country to develop innovative regional and local plans for infrastructure investmentusing

-- investment, using los angeles' 30/10 project as a model. we are ready and eager to work more with business to make it happen. we are ready to be more innovative and enterprising. but the reality is that without federal involvement, the money simply can't be raised at a local level at the scale needed for our major cities to compete globally. next week the president of the united states will give his state of the union address. the labor movement is ready for a call to action, a call to invest in our future, to create jobs, to be the country we can and must be. we are ready for vision, and we believe in the president's vision of a nation that is strong because we are just and

true to our values. a vision for a national future founded on the profound truth that social justice and material prosperity are not competing values--they are necessary to each other. a truth that we have ignored as a country for a generation at a terrible cost. and what is that future? just this -- in a globalized, high-tech world, when it often seems that change is the one constant in our lives, the real american dream is that if we work hard and do our part for each other, each of us can enjoy the economic security that allows us to live our lives with dignity and have hope for our future and for our children's future. this dream must be a reality in

our time, and in our children's and grandchildren's time. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. earlier, i felt to it knowledge cliff doggy of the american postal workers union. we have time for answers and -- questions and dancers. any questions? yeah. >> i am with "investors business

daily eric howell can you give a sense of what you? -- can you get the sense of what you expected? >> now that we have a working majority that we did not have for several years, the case has backed up, and us supreme court gave it a bigger backlog. we have been working for the cases at a rapid pace. ball off the land is to encourage the process of collective bargaining. when collective bargaining was thriving and vibrant, the well that this nation created was spread more evenly, and the middle class was born. somewhere along the line, an attack on collective bargaining took place. now, we are seeing a president who supports collective bargaining, it is doing what he can to have a national relations

labor's board did national labor relations board -- national labor relations board do some of those things. they can clear up some multi- tier precedents that were overturned during the british -- bush administration, and that some of the process fair. a limited some of the delays so that workers who want a union can have one and it will not take five or six years. it is an important step, and collective bargaining is part of the solution to creating or eliminating the economic mess we currently find ourselves in paris the ge in. -- in. >> i am with "the wall street

journal." i am wondering what you think about the announcement of a new regulatory strategy by president obama. a few minutes ago, the u.s. department of labor went through a proposed report on occupational noise. i'm wondering what your thoughts are about that new strategy. >> there are three parts to that order yesterday. one is an executive order that reaffirms the requirement of the regulatory policy for cost/benefit analysis, then adds new requirements to the cumulative impact of regulations, it and to look at alternatives that direct regulations such as providing economic incentives to access and access to information. to the extent that that analysis draws them away from enforcing a

regulation, and protecting the health and safety of workers, which ticket is a distraction. the second part of the memorandum is to agencies, directing them to give greater consideration to the impact of regulations on small business, and whether to consider rules for small business that should have different requirements, and the third one, it is a memorandum to agencies on regulatory compliance, directing agencies to make enforcement of data and compliance data readily available to the public through searchable databases. we think that is a great policy. it is one that we support. to the extent that the other two divert these agencies from their main tasks, whether it is protecting collective bargaining, for protecting minors, protecting workers, health and safety on the job, and it competes for scarce

resources, we think we would rather not see it. >> mike, from zero called the new york times." are you frustrated -- from "the new york times." are you frustrated when you hear things from the policy president obama announced yesterday that he seems to be moving in a direction different from a future that you outlined in your speech? >> mike, i can tell you that i'm frustrated about a number of things. everytime i see somebody tried to demonize a teacher, firefighter, or a police officer that we called heroes at one time, that saved our lives, items frustrated. when i see the congress of the indebted states who was elected to create jobs, debating the repeal of health care, everybody knows it is not going anywhere. it is a meaningless political gesture that takes up valuable

legislative time, i am frustrated. when i see state legislatures that give away money or refuse to build high-speed iraq all that could make this country far more competitive -- high-speed rail, that could make this country far more competitive, i am frustrated. when i see anything but stops us from ft region from putting 50 million americans -- when i see anything that stops us from putting 15 million americans back to work, i am frustrated. we have an obligation to make america what it can be, what it can be,be, and what it wil so every american has a chance at a decent wage, health care, and the pension. anything that gets in the way of that frustrates me. are things that he has done frustrating me?

they have frustrated all of us. i am frustrated that the republicans refused to say yes to everything, and no to everything. that is were the culprit lies right now. we need to come together as a nation to fix this. we do not have to be a third world country. as i said in my talk, workers have not given on america. we believe in america, but any politician that says we cannot invest in the american future, and we cannot invest in the middle class, has given up on this country, and they should be taken down by the american people when the proper election rolls around, because we need people who believe in our country. [applause] >> i am with "inside u.s. trade." in light of the fiscal challenges you outlined, how

much of a priority in terms of resource allocation is your fight against pending fda, especially the pending u.s.- korea fta? >> could you repeat the question? >> how much of a priority is your fight against pending free- trade agreements with korea and columbia? >> it will be a major priority. we will fight because it fails to do what we think a trade policy should do. so, we will oppose it. if that is what our executive council believes in. improvements were made. if this president made significant improvements for the auto industry, but not enough were made, and not enough change in the overall regime. he is still a bush-type agreement, and we need a different type of trade regime that recognizes the new realities in the global economy. >> yes.

>> hi, thank you. yes. jennifer. i'm with the "fiscal times." i was just interested on your thoughts on president obama's pro-business messages that he has had in the fast -- last few days, and secondly, your thoughts on raising the debt ceiling. >> not much thought needs to be given to raising the debt ceiling. you either have to do it, or you shut down the government. if you shut down the government, that is said intolerable situation. it will set us back in the economy. it could put us back into recession. it is not even within the realm of good economic thought. i do not know the first part of your question, jennifer, i could not quite hear you. >> president obama's pro-

business, as the last few days? >> he has been about as pro- business as any president has been out there to this point, i would say. all of the firm's right now have record profits, and they're paying the lowest amount of taxes that they have paid in decades. what more could you ask for from a president? maybe he stood up on the occasion and said "you know, wall street really went over the edge. they almost destroyed the economy. it took too much risk, and they did not adjust themselves, and there was no regulation." i am glad he said that, because it was true. if they find that offensive, well, i think the truth can be offensive occasionally, but they will have to live with that. i hope that he continues telling the truth, that when they engage in excesses', one day threaten

the future of the country, that he calls them out on that. we now have new laws that he worked very hard on along with a lot of us to reregulate wall street, because the fundamental underpinning of the neo-liberal economic thought was that the market is all self-correcting, all knowing, and all self- correcting. if that is the basic premise that it was dull thud, and we have proven that to be inaccurate, not true, yet we still have people up on that very hill saying those very things. i guess we will continue to talk about what we know economic reality to be, and we will try to counter people like scott walker who wants to do away with high-speed rail.

>> i am stephanie at bloomberg news. i had a quick question. you spoke some of lloyd blankfein at goldman sachs it jamie dimon at jpmorgan chase. i was sorry if you could expand a little more on what your concerns are. >> sure. here is what they are doing. i am publicizing one of your competitors. "the new york times" has a wonderful article -- "all look at goldman -- a look at goldman." they are taught to pay out bonuses. at the same time, they are going to get 93 -- $93 million in bonuses. at the same time, he is raising money to go after that guy's pension right there. of fire fighters pension, a teachers' pension, and other

public servants pensions because he says the $20,000 he is going to get in pension is too much, and at the same time he is taking $93 million in bonuses that of crude, by the way, during the heart of the crisis. if you get a bonus when you about destroy the economy, i cannot wait to see the bonuses they will get with the economy starts hollering again. it is that type of hypocrisy, -- humming again. it is that type of hypocrisy by governors to say we need to take away the pension of a public servant because other people do not have it. it is the wrong question to be asking. asked the question america should be asking is why don't those have it? let's hope that do not -- let's help those that do not have with to get it, not take away from those that do have it. [applause]

>> thank you. >> you mentioned in your speech that the last two years have taught the labor movement that you cannot depend on washington, but here we are in washington. from the perspective of the labor movement, he valued de obama administration in the last two years, and the bridge evaluate the obama administration in the last two years -- evaluate the obama administration in the last two years, and be specific as possible. [laughter] >> you had better bring lunches in. [laughter] >> it does not do as good to go backward. america wants jobs created. what problems solved. problems were not getting solved in washington because of cheap bickering and posturing. they put themselves in front of the american economy, the

american worker, of american business, and everything else. we think that kind of foolishness is going to continue, hopefully not as much, but it will continue. we are going to work in the states to do locally and regionally what we can do to help create jobs, such as the 30/10 project in los angeles and hopefully work with those states and regional businesses to get things done -- to create jobs and put people back to work, whether it is small business, mid-size business, or large business, we are anxious to work in those areas to create jobs and get an economy that is humming. all of you have probably written at one time that the recession is over, but it is not over for the 50 million people that are unemployed. it is not over for about 11 million people that are under- employed. he will feel, until -- they will

feel until we can put them back to work. that should be the definition and the yardstick that we judge everybody by -- how many jobs have you created? what have you done to put america back to work? that is the yardstick we will apply, and hopefully working with people at the local and regional areas we will be able to make some had been, and get some jobs created. >> i think that is a good place to end. [applause] in thehampshire's first nation presidential primary is more than one year ago -- away, but the results are in from the republican presidential straw poll. the winner is mitt romney. he is followed by ron paul.

-- tied for fifth place are republican representatives michele bock and jim demint. the poll was surveying the republican state committee in new hampshire. meanwhile, tea party-dec businessmen invested and established it to become the state party's new chair. -- an established candidate to become the state party put the new chair. >> c-span2 local content vehicles are traveling the country. we take you now to detroit, where the north american international auto show is taking place. while there, we caught up with the governor of michigan as a toward the shelter >> the rebuilding of michigan, the reinvention of michigan are the companies here, not the fact the government is here. his companies, innovators that

are going to create the more and better jobs of our future. our role as government is to be a supporting player in that. we are committed to that. we are going to make that happen with tax reform, regulatory reform, and having asked the best economic development people in the world to create an environment for success. i'm excited by the opportunity we have in front of us. >> these guys really have a nice charging station technology they want us to help them with. the governor wants to see what you have. >> this is our charging station. you can run into it with a car. this is the standard right here. this is an access card. a touch screen. it is monitored remotely. it is designed from the building's owner's standpoint. >> i am excited and not let the

belts all over -- now that the belts are over, they have taken -- bailouts are over, they can be profitable again and look for the future. we move from a negative, too positive, from the rearview mirror, looking forward. if that is the same message we're trying to take across our state to our role is to put -- is to support these companies succeeding, because that is how we're would create jobs. we will get this done to >> what has been the impact on the tried and the state of michigan? >> we have gone through at least 10 years of a very difficult time, but we are taking ourselves up. what got me elected was people being positive in michigan and saying there is a bright future. its let's build the new michigan. -- let's build a new michigan. [laughter] [unintelligible]

>> what kind of cars are your family in right now and are you looking to buy? >> we have ford's and gm in the family. for the campaign, we had a hybrid that we drove 80,000 miles on turf that was our main campaign vehicle. >> you actually get your finger close, so there is no actual switch. it is innovative. thank you very much tied i appreciate that. -- very much. i appreciate that. [laughter]

[unintelligible] >> what is your take on the government bailout of gm and chrysler? >> in this case it was appropriate, because you were talking about the entire auto industry. it was not about bailing out one company or another company. it would have been an issue of bringing down the entire infrastructure of the auto industry. that is yet to be determined. i would like to be -- highlight the fact that ford did not go through the process. it able to be successful. that is a great model for all of us. [unintelligible] >> i am excited about their future. i hope they do well. that is in the best interest of all of us, to see the auto companies do well.

>> my counterpart as the u.s. commerce secretary. -- is the u.s. commerce secretary. [unintelligible] they have to trade with vietnam, china, all over the world. we are right next door. >> i agree with you. we want as many things going back and forth as recanted >> i wish you well in your term. -- as we can. i wish you well in your term. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> let me open this. >> for detroit, we need to be on

the path to been a great city again. i think the mayor is a great person. yes the right direction. i want to make sure i am therefore the turnover. we are going to make that happen. >> speaking of partnerships, looking to washington, the obama administration, how will their role figure in? >> i think it can be a positive role. i want to be proactive. we went to washington yesterday. i believe i was one of the first governors to make a trip to talk about how to work on things together. this is not about who wins or loses. there is opportunity for all of us to succeed by having a better system to allow these companies to do fabulous things and create jobs. >> is there anything specific you are asking for? >> it is not about asking for bailouts or handouts. it is with the existing wealth

that we have, we need more value for the money with the federal government, in state and local government. he is really about partnering in those existing frameworks to do a better job of cooperating. in some ways, i want to talk to washington about st. "can we not health partner with you to help you understand first-person what these issues are instead of being isolated in the washington environment?" it was a good response time i look forward to working with them. thank you. -- response. i look forward to working with them. thank you. >> local content vehicles are traveling the country. for more information, go to our web site c-span.org/lcv. >> this weekend on "road to the

white house" two speeches. she was in iowa to speak to a political action committee and did the boy. >> did you do understand that your name is not new to the presidential conversation? will that continue for months to come? >> i know it is shocking when a girl goes to i wanna bet speculation might come along, but i am here i want to be a part of the conversation. >> watchers speech along with other remarks in south carolina tomorrow on the "road to the white house" at 6:30 and 90 4:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. next, and form on u.s.-canada trade and security

issues. you will hear remarks from the canadian acid to the u.s. and a speech writer david frum. this is just under two hours. >> hello everyone. i am peter van dusen. hello to the canadians watching us on seed packets and americans watching this on c-span. -- watching us on cpac. we will be talking about canadian-u.s. relations. we will be covering the topic to think we should cover -- trade, security, energy, the environment. we will talk about social policy, all those things we need to talk about. there is something else we really need to get settled this evening. how come the washington capitals have a way better hockey team than the ottawa senators?

there are canadians playing on the senators, on the capitals. there are americans plan for the senators and the capitals. i have come to the conclusion that it must be a russian thing. that is for another show. these people have a deep knowledge of relations. some of them had been a part of the decision making process. david frum is a citizen of both the u.s. and canada. key is widely read and seen in the u.s. and canada. he is a former speechwriter for president george w. bush and was once arrested for a guard did not believe the canadian national was permitted to have a job in the white house. he is also the editor of the website.

chris sands specializes in a lean u.s.-canadian relations and lectures at johns hopkins and is an adjunct professor at the american school public affairs. he is also an all bright fellow -- a fulbright fellow. mary scott greenswood specializes in trade policy issues on both sides of the order -- of the border. she is also appointed by president clinton. pamela wallin is on the senate committee for defense and also on foreign trade. the issue is the consulate general from 2002-2006. the former broadcast journalist is also a senior adviser on

canadian-u.s. relations for the council of the americas in washington. gary doer was appointed ambassador in 2009. before that he was in manitoba and worked on cross border issues such as trade, climate change and darker culture. -- climate change, and agriculture. now he is fighting protectionist sentiment in some circles and still from time to time is dispelling the myth that 9/11 terrorists entered the u.s. from canada. and the national editor of mcclean is with us this evening. first, let me bring in luiza savage to see with the state of relations is between our two countries. she has been a reporter in washington for seven years.

where is canada on the washington radar these days? >> a very small blip. that is not necessarily a bad thing. it can take up all the oxygen in the air when you have china, iran, iraq, north korea. these are countries that worry the white house than they spend most of their attention on. canada has this huge $600 billion trade relationship with the united states and it is generally assumed that everything is fine and there's nothing to worry about. if the prime minister and this -- >> chances are when the prime minister and the president get along well that there are no issues. do we make too much of the personal relationship? >> we tend to fetishize this. are they too close, close enough, happy, upset? how many times did they pass

each other in the hallways at the g-20 meeting? power is so divided and the converse is so important not just to passing legislation, but these also affect canadians. auletta these issues canada has been dealing with, whether it is the imposition of a passport requirement the "buy american" legislation, this is a big part of what canada has to deal with and not only about stephen harper and barack obama are getting on. >> there is an idea of a continental security perimeter. where does that stand? >> there are discussions on going. the idea has been around for the past decade of securing the our borders of north american such that we can have an easier flow of goods and people inside north america. so many issues have bought this down whether it is issues and information sharing, privacy, and how much information about travellers coming into canada

does canada want to give to the u.s. or about policies outside of north america when there are different these requirements, and immigration policies, who is a refugee and who is not for example are the kinds of delicate issues that need to be discussed so that the two countries and governments have been working on them. we hope to see something in the near weeks or months, but i think it is still firm much an ongoing negotiation. >> let's focus on energy to get our discussion started here this evening. we have heard a lot about dirty oil coming from various politicians in the united states. is the sentiment still the same? "there's a big debate going on in the u.s. as this issue gets more attention. there's a pipeline proposed to be built from alberta into the united states down as far as taxes that could potentially

double the oil exports from canada to the united states. some critics of the democratic side predominantly at same we want to lessen our dependency on hydrocarbons in general. the supporters say that we would like to get more oil from canada and less from the middle east. there are a lot of american jobs involved in this. the state department is reviewing it and it is under a lot of pressure from congress to either slow down the review and take more time to look at the environmental aspect or to speeded up. we just recently had an election and a new congress came in. we had the chairman of the energy committee who was committed to opposing, henry waxman, and has been replaced

by a senator says we need to move this bastard that it is a big economic issue. what is interesting here is that after 9/11, the attention was on security. now we have unemployment and recession and all of the issues are starting to be raised in terms of jobs and the economy. we are seeing a renewed focus on had to get the border moving more smoothly in addition to keeping it secure and how to use this energy relationship to help the economy in both countries? that is where canada, despite the attention it gets on an average day, is able to maybe get the attention of both the white house and the converse on some of the issues canadians have been talking about for quite some time. >> luiza, thanks. now we will broaden the discussion and we will bring in paul wells. you know they will not be seeing eye to eye on this topic.

that is why we have them here to lead this debate. paul, canada and the u.s. -- perfect strangers or best friends? >> in listening to luiza, i thought was dad -- nostalgic for the good old days. that was great. when we get to the attacks in the world trade center and the pentagon when president bush addressed congress with tony blair sitting next to mr. bush and he mentioned all the friends had been such great allies and he did not mention canada. we hear from a speech writer that it had gotten edited out of an earlier draft. they would not believe to the extent to that which introspection and panic on the canadian side have banned -- had

happened. one decade before that, we've got a national collection on whether or not to have free trade with the united states and it was one of the nastiest election we have ever had. there were commercials arguing that we took a free-trade agreement that the border between the two countries would be erased and we would be assimilated. the only reason i feel nostalgic for those days is in the last decade, there has been a surprising amount of drift that has bled into the relationship. no one talks about u.s.-canada relations anymore, yet we have the most active trading relationship. we have a what used to be the world's largest undefended border. now is thinly defended. yet canadian trade with the non-u.s. partners has grown faster than the canada trade with the u.s. and in every year

since 2000. i cannot name a large project that we are undertaking in the world, especially the afghanistan war in at least the canadian involvement is winding down. it seems that there is a kind of direct setting it to the relationship. >> this is the difference between you and me. where you see darkness, i see light. were you see discord, i see harmony. where you see draft, i see peace. if you go back to the decade, on the issue of the military, think of the discord between baker and kennedy. between pearson and johnson. the kinds of arguments that took place of the vietnam war. as you mentioned, we entered side-by-side in the largest joint military operation since correa. on the trade fight -- on the trade front, we were constantly talking about trade conflicts

and now is a couple of minor things. it is a tiny fraction of our overall trade. when obamacare men, we were excited because they're going to renegotiate nafta. -- when obama came in, we were excited. we have a relationship that is working well. the neuroses of canadians have much diminished and i think that has been a contributing factor. we're not as relevant as we used to be which is a good thing. that is progress. that is contributing, i think, to further progress in the future. >> thank you for that. let's go to our panelists now and again their opening comments. >> i agree with luiza in terms of our relationship. i went to say that this week, president hu is visiting washington. the crawling at the bottom of the screen goes along the lines of, "are we best friends with china or are we rivals?"

it seems to me that it is a kind of simplistic question, if you will. i agree that the relationship is very, very strong between canada and the united states. i believe over the last number of years before i was an ambassador while i was premier and down during the time i have been in the washington that there's a lot of confidence in canada. i also believe we are dealing with an extraordinary time in the u.s.. if you go back to the 1980 proxy and the trade disputes -- the we had a protectionist act after act. we have an unemployment rate lower than the united states, still too high in both countries. we did not go through the anchor and questions of accountability that have gone through with the banking sector in the u.s., and i would say we have lots of issues that pop up with their very manageable. we have a very constructive, positive working relationship with the united states.

that is not to say that it is perfect, but we buy more goods from the u.s. than any other country including the total of the european union. we sell more energy including clean energy from hydro and traditional fossil fuels from other places in canada. we have more people visiting, i think it is 25 million per year, to the united states from canada. for a country of 35 million people, that as a lot. even the olympics where we had a lot of trash talking going on in washington, and thank god we won that final hockey game host -- [applause] i am a diplomat so i will not mention the stanley cup. the perimeter of cooperative security for air, shipping, and the original border corp. was

done out of norad in colorado with american and canadian personnel working together. lots of work together every day. another building to could be negative for canada, but i would say on beholding it is a very constructive mature relationship. we did not have our hand on the horn every hour. richard roll up our sleeves and get things done. >> up until the hockey comment, i was going to say that the ambassador was doing a great job and we should be very lucky. we talk about the differences between canadians and americans. a canadian is an unarmed american with health care. i am not sure about that. i think there are lots of differences that we do not realize. and is like carbon monoxide. you cannot see or smell it.

for example, in canada, the question is about public policy, what has the government done for us? in the united states, it is what has the government done to us? there is a real distressed a difference in the way the people in the policy. americans may be surprised to learn that in canada of one big debate over the last year had to do when the government decided they wanted to take away the long form senses. as an american i thought it made sense and it probably did not need all that information. the reaction was striking. it was a bit controversial issue in canada. canadians may be surprised to know that when the u.s. finally got along to getting health care for everyone that the first thing the new congress does, no offense, is move to repeal it. there is a distrust of the

government here. it illustrates to be a real difference. we speak the same language, but we often do not understand each other. we need a new vocabulary. the example here is some time the ministers come to town, no offense to you in the audience, and they complain about what they call "border thickening." you know that it is a bad thing because of commerce. they sayhe americans, a the border is the last line of defense. we mean the same thing, but he needs to be secure. >> center -- senator wallin? we, canada, is america's best friend whether they know whether or not. they are our best friend whether we like it or not.

i agree that the chip is lifting slowly but surely off of our shoulders and i am so grateful for that. my time spent in the united states when i was in new york after 9/11, why were we always running around complaining that big brother. i remember having dinner with the commissioner of the new york police force. he excused himself to go and answer his phone. he came back and apologized for leaving the table. i said not a top -- not a problem, just glad we could help. he looked to me and i said, "we invented those things." he said, "no kidding. i assumed it was the japanese." we did not make our own case the way we answer to people's

problems. that is starting to change. we're getting to the point, i think, where the relationship is maturing. we can disagree, but we can do so agreeably and have a grown-up conversation. we cannot lose sight of the importance of this trade relationship. in this huge. despite the focus on china, the u.s. economy is still three times larger than that of the hours. -- of ours. we care about what goes on here. a bad day for america is a bad day for canada. we need to be concerned. it looks like we are starting to fix a bad call that we made 10 years ago when we did start to first of the conversations about perimeter security, protecting north america. canada was concerned about its sovereignty. now we have grown up enough to say we should put the border

around our country. we do see it as an issue of the border because of trade, the people, and the security issue. >> chris sands? >> i would agree. one thing underlying a lot of these comments is that washington is the same story it always is. contesting issues in the public, nasty, etc. canada has changed. it is much stronger. there is a better sense of who canadians are. it is not the little brothers and roaring about the shuttle that we cast. -- shadow we cast. the disconnected that a lot of canadians feel that in their relationship with americans, they feel like people. it is always an asymmetrical

relationship in which canada is a smaller dog. this is reflecting the relationship that americans and canadians have. that, more than anything else, is changing the way we handle issues, solve problems, and it is bringing us closer together. the other thing that has been very beneficial for us is the transition to the obama administration. many of the things that came after 9/11 were shocking to canadians because it was such a change. americans have always been more security-minded than canadians. you'll probably remember that when george bush was running against al gore, both were for more police, less than control, more prisons, and a bigger military. in 2000, it was not clear against whom we need these things. it is part of the psyche that the united states has. it is disturbing for canadians

to see that side so upfront and direct. i think canadians have had a chance to see not the change but the continuity whether it is on homeland security, the war in afghanistan. a number of the free-trade policies that andrew manchin had stayed. the obama administration has followed a lot of the same lines which reflects a very american desire for how the relationship is managed. hopefully, for canadians, that takes a step back from a george bush being the meeting, evil, -- mean, evil, chimpy hitler. if canadians start to see that as normal, they will be able to have less friction. >> when barack obama was elected, i was worried about a series of very specific challenges to the canadian relationship that he or evert

people in the circle committed to. he campaigned against nafta and reopening it. that was worrying. he had endorsed the idea that had been floated around by john kerry about rewriting the corporate tax system of the united states and the widow of the very discouraging to investments in other countries. there was a huge question about the future of oil. but the good news from the canadian point of view, that is from a democratic point of view, that barack obama has jettisoned almost all of his early campaign promises and has brought the clinton campaign at 3.0. >> bad for democrats? >> because they are all upset. they were hoping for a transformation, that this would be an administration -- you remember how unhappy they were with clinton and they felt that he had not fulfilled his

potential. the 2008 primary was a referendum on the clinton years. they said we did not want to go back, we wanted something different. they got something very continuous, which from a canadian point of view is reassuring. the question you have to wonder about is how does this go forward? a lot of those anxieties, there are reasons for them to occur. and has been amazing to me that there has been so little protectionist reaction to this severe employment crisis. i wonder if that will continue if unemployment remains at very high levels. there is a secondary problem which is as the u.s.-china relationship becomes more intense, and it is bound to become more tense, because of trade, currency manipulations, energy, canada has a strong interest in a strong, a tranquil, commercially oriented

u.s.-china relationship. i do not think that kind of relationship is in the cards for the future. it may be an area of affection that is quite new which is disagreements over how to manage china. >> okay. let's so that we are not certain time in to grab too much in one bite we will break it down into categories and i can be the traffic officer we all agree. [laughter] let's dig deeper on the issue of trade and security and let me start this week. if the united states once continental security, are the not going to get it whether canada wants it or not? >> well, you're asking the estion -- the bottom line is we have a cooperative relationship fo 53 years and norad now. it's a cooperative system that has evolved and modernized as the fritz change, including, you know, it's gone from the alleged threat of the soviet union or the actual threat. it's gone to other potential threats. it is a joint command in colorado springs, canadian and

military just as recently as the olympics. they work together to provide the outer circlof protection, the shipwright her program, the air security, and i think we have to modernize that approach obviously every year to make it more relevant. on the issue of post 9/11 -- and we were discussing issues of sharing information at the border to deal with crystal meth and other issues that were a threat before 9/11. this wasn't a new thing although 9/11 made a much more serious and much more both emotionally and in real terms. i think where we have a difference with the former administration, and particularly not tom ridge but with secretary chertoff to be dealt with its security, security, security, security on the border, and i do believe you can have security and economy in a more balanced approach. but it was difficult i think

with secretary chertoff on those issues. so we are trying to get recognition of the economy as much as we acknowledge that the safety of our own citizens and the safety of americans important. one of the biggest challenges as ambassador that i have on the issues of security is to speak at canadian audiences and let them know in my view it's not a human right to cross a border commesso that is part of our message, the job of ambassador is to communicate canada's concerns about the economy and trade to the united states but also to communicate to the ceos that they've got to be part of the solution on the other side. >> do you think canadians have come because of the years of how the fluid movement was across the border? canadians have come to believe that, that it is a human right to go to the united states? >> we all went across the border to play basebl or soccer or -- it was a lot different, 20, 30 years ago for those of us a little bit older.

so -- >> it is one of those things that is lost in translation, because right after 9/11 this was, you know, when paul said a security chumps trade, what he was doing was sending the ssage which is understanding this is the biggest trading relationship in the world and it's going to ntinue to be. we have to put a security emphasis on that because we did think we could just go back and forth without -- and people were doing it. our borders were getting really lacks at that point and i thinks we would have cabinet members come to new york and say trade is the ultimate question here. you know, if we can't let security stand in a way of trade. and the ameicans were going are you people not? of course we want trade. we are t biggest trading partners. but if that trade and borders are unsecured we can't do this, and it was a little bit of going like this. i think we are closer now to speaking the same language in part because canada has been educated, too.

canadians have been educated. we have on growth terrorists, we have some of those issues we didn't feel we were dealing with in 2001, and we are in 2011. >> andrew and then scotty. >> do they think we get it on the security because it is going to be crucial to be put in additi to any kind trimeter if anybody is going to trust us to come up with our part of the deal. if there's an eater reality or perception we don't get it, that we are not as price of securit as americans, not prepared to do the steps necessary to secure those borders, then we are not going to be able to -- >> i think we are getting into the sea that we are getting it, and the thing that is why we are actually even having the discussion again to get it off the table. >> to that point, andrew, i think the debate on the border perimeter security has to be argued in canada first. because i really believe in canada puts it mind at something, it can get almost never it once with the united states particularly with the leadership in washington. drexel, the canada-u.s. relationship for years was

viewed through a prism of softer, and the narrative in canada was poor canada, the big bet american coalition is so well connected in the southern senators are always going to trump so we are never going to have the politics. the truth of the matter was canada didn't have a coherent position with all due respect among external b.c., internal b.c., the mayor times aligned with new england, quebec, and so all of the lumber producers couldn't get it to get there in canada and on the u.s. side of the state your position to read this is the number-one issue. and honestly come to the credit of the current government, you had a collision. there's a lile bit of problem in d.c. right now. and harper asked and bush said you've got it. so, the truth is on the border delete and on the continental security, have the debate in canada, and if this is the thing you want from the united states -- if you can stand up and say this is our number one priority, this is what we want to collaborate on, the u. and the

apparatus of the government wants to help you got to have one priority and you have to speak with a single voice on it. >> this is exactly right. this body is exactly right about the way in which the process is managed. there is a will to resolve these kind of things, but you're also ght, peter, that the united states on security is going to ask regardless,nd i think one of the great disconnects has come from political leadership in canada that has been unwilling to be direct with the canadian people about the national interest. when the perimeter was proposed by george w. bush it made sense for americans why? we underestimated for decades. the canada u.s. border looks like it did in the 1950's. it was beaten up, it was understaffed. we moved one-third of the personal to the suthern border to anticipate nafta and we didn't replace them until 2000. we had been derelict and neglect and ourelves, we had a very big test to upgrade that security and a parameter would allow us to skit that step and just reinforce the military side of the border, deal with the external and shift the

resources. it was a good solution. the canadiens seemed that might be a little too hot. step back, and we did concentric. we are going to reinforce the border and we are goingto have a perimeter and their relationships with allies are not of the world. this is the challenge today because i hear canadians talk about sending the border as a result of parameter the new can't get rid of those bodies. you can't get rid of the personnel, the club med, facilities now on the border so it's going to remain more fortified the and theanadiens were used to back in the old days. that is the cost of not having made them, not having made the commitment when it was first stopped. >> ii cod follow -- >> [inaudible] debate over the security versus trade in canada before we can make progress bilaterally. you've been out of iowa for a while. the odds are great. we've only heard of the existence of these strategic leaks. there is no appetite fr a nationwide conversation about these things because this

government is in a minority situation every to fall and therefore afraid to have these debates and it's too bad because secretary napolitano says a thick border sounds like a good thing on like me she doesn't come from sarnia which is one of the greek border cities, one of the - border cities on the can of the u.s. border. >> [inaudible] >> it used to be there would be a sign of the quarter milaway from the border say and look out here is the border. now says ten models that because many days that is how far the traffic backs up and the traffic is carrying rolling stock for american factories, goods for american stores, its carrying prosperity for both of us and the its back to the border to be >> what i am saying this for a good big idea in the bilateral relationship to succeed it's got to come from canada. it just has to. now maybe the reason there isn't a debate you're talking a that is what the ambassador said which is canadians think the if a constitutional right to go to the united states any time they please and they don't realize the hour guests or visitors but

i think that it's actually something else that's important. that is we need to look not just of security but traditional security, defense and security. we need to look at economic security, and if we look at our -- if you look at cyber warfare it's shutting down business networks, shutting down wall street. so if we start to think about economic security there is no better partner than canada. also by the way on the sense of security, norad, the border, etc., but if we can get homeland security to get their heads around the mission isn't just to stop bad guys and correct duties but to figure out how to be smarter about this commerce so that we are more competitive with our -- we are more competitive with the people abroad that we are competg againsthat would enhance our were security in an economic way which i think it's material to our general security. >> it is a tree the security. they are connected. >> it's interesting what comes up in the discussion is that canadians need to have control over their sovereignty of the

border and a lot of canadians are saying we don't want americans to have the same sovereignty over control of their own border. >> one of the reasons the border thickening is such a concern and goes back to scott d., it is very characteristic of americans to think of the border as the ultimate line of defense. but in fact the order is a terrible place to do security. one of the reasons the americans focus on the order is because the american position is very uncomfortable with dealing with the internals base of the united states as a security issue and this is one of the reasonsor the simple white american immigration enforcement is so ineffective. the rule is if you or any illegal immigrant there's a massive militarize the presence on the southern border to stop it. but if you can get past it it is all yolly oxen free.

there is no reliable method of testing whether people are legally in the country. social security cards don't have pictures on them never mind some prints and ret maaskant and other things would have on an e card to suggest the idea the country would haven id card is so shocking it can't be considered but it's in dispensed with. so that's how you get things very outrageous measures lke this one in ariza which is a real concern where the police are authorized to stop people who look like they might be illegal immigrants to check their papers but nobody else. now it would be rational to say every time an employee, a prospective employee goes to an employer must prove they have an entitlement to work but that is anathema in the united staes seek the militarist border enforcement. so yes, canada needs to have a attitude towards sharing security with the united states and canada needs to make the i would argue for its own reasons

canada needs to make getting a wide open a refugee policy a priority. that said, the americans also need to understand the border cannot be the primary focus of the security. you have to have the interior space of the country with a method learned from countries in europe and australia and canada. >> i would agree first of all from my perspective we do not want to have an incident in canada where anything we didn't do lead to the debt as a citizen in our country or a citizen in the united states, so it's important to have an honest debate about the risk in letting people see that everyday. taught at sarnia, i don't know how many were on the plane landed in detroit last year or windsor, it's not just american landing on plants and plants from the united states only flying over the united states. so we have got to point out all of the ptential risks to be able to take action to correct it.

our discussion with homeland security have been more than just the security that security is the safety of people is going to be a priority for canadians and americans and we are working on ways of working much further away from the order to keep citizens safe and i think that is an extremely important in terms of what we are doing. on refugees that was one of our perceived weakness is in canada, the fact that it took up to five years to add to the cade a refuge case in canada and they are not necessarily be known whether they were after a couple of years and in a minority parliament there was a law passed in canada the americans are very impressed over which has a much shorter time frame than for agitation, which on the left i guess if you oversimplify is faster and on the right is more secure because you are tracking more effectively and that is why three of the four parties in parliament voted for

the bill that the minister fashioned together in a very effective way and it is a step forward again on canada saying we care about fairness for the refugees. we've always cared about that, but we also care about the length of time the was completely undefined and raising questions of, legitimate questions. >> i wonder what the attitude david was trying in america or changing before a big part of for the original intent the parameter didn't succeed to read it wasn't just canada, it was also this over insistence of the americans for sealing the border as the first security which is like a fool's errand and i nder whether with the status the economy and raising the economy relative to the security in the next particularly the need to be competitive with the chinese and the need to have an open border with north america for that purpose with a deficit and cost, the need to get the control cost and the emergence of the homegrown teort threats in the united states all of that simply adds up to much

less emphasis on theborder, the border is our salvation and much more opening their for a more cost-effective approach that treats canada as a part of the solution rather than the problem. >> you both had that experience which is why the nature of the conversation is different. >> we focus a lot of securities and have a few minutes left in this area. we talk about some of the irritants the personal care a one of them is the legal length in the country of origin labeling and, and some of the comments, sometimes you get -- that's important to understand the difference with the system wos you will have bills coming forward all the time that could have an impact on canada that never go much frther than being tabled. let's talk about that issue and then the country of origin labeling and whether that is a threat on the road. >> i think food safety is an opportunity and a potential

threat in agriculture. it is a very important issue and the canada has to have cable competent iences and we do in our departments to ensure that there is no trojan horse under the kind of cover food safety to stop goods from moving back-and-forth in the agricultural sector so we have got to make sure our capacity on science is first and top shelf and i think we have that i have to work out of the new farm bill. the new food safety belt. secondly, the country of origin legislation was negotiated with the congressional committee that interpreted by a cabinet secretary in a way that in the short run as hurt farmers in canada in terms of live animals and the integration back and forth. ironically in the long run will probably end up more with that agriculture being processed in the value-added jobs in canada,

some in the short term it is a real hit on producers in canada, that in the medium term this was going to happen if to get going, too, the would end up driving more production to canada in terms of the vow to add than an unintended consequence of these issues in agriculture ve got to be watched, but hving said that, it is $32 million across the borders and it's really interesting to 16 million or billion, 32 billion both ways, jury integrated agriculture system and we may find kashmoula kuran other product there, but i would suggest that it hurt a lot. we are going to the worst trade organization in the medium term will hurt them more and that's the point we are trying to make in washington. you are going to lose jobs in the packing industry in five years because of this action. >> i think there is a congressman who has a bill to

label country of origin on all fuels and the united states so americans can know what they're putting in >> good local labeling of the electrons. the good things there a misunderstanding about the way that the economy wos, and particularly about the way how integrated in our economy was if canada and the united states and there is a dispute that had to do a glamorous topic that you remember that had to do with hawk and how the and on the country of origin labeling if you are beaten or sausage is american, product of america, and having a common sense approach that says this is a product of the united states and canada. they were trying to figure out how to use the decide as it is american or canadian. is it where the pay was born, is it where the pig was weaned? is where the piglet is aware it was slaughtered, it gets gross, is it where it was processed? the trick to go back and

forth across the border several times as do most things in north america before they reach the marketplace, as we have to make sure things like the country of origin labeling don't meet our border a disadvantage for the north american businesses and do just need common sense and you have to have a well and from time to time stand up to a particular narrow interest that doesn't understand the broad economy. >> it's just understanding the difference in the politics scott and i were at a meeting together. this is probably nine years ago and there was legislation post-9/11. there were canadian businessmen on the stage and american businessmen asking questions, and the americans said has the legislation been tabled and he said that canadian smiling of course it's all going to happen. and the americans were looking crestfallen and it was kind of a who's done first and finally be set to a former ambassador will you please stand up and explain

this because tabling legislation in the united states means it's bad tabling legislation in canada means it's going forward. sometimes we are just missing the obvious when we are having the conversations with one another. >> also sometimes in the united states we have a tendency to react. sometimes we change our minds very quickly. one minute we love the matter and i and the next minute we hate. this sometimes doesn't lead us -- >> koln down, sit down. >> i don't do it but at least it is overreacted and then have a second but later. we never succeeded with canada by surprising canadians. it doesn't go well. we propose to the government we would have free trade decades before we got it because we caot defend their ad we had a perimeter of the time it made sense to us it was a shock to

the system. we might have done better in that regard. the second thing i would say is now in washington because we are concerned about jobs it's not so much the economic cost of the border. i can we are starting to realize there is a compliance cost o about fossilization. we know that to follow the rules that takes a lot of people work and the jobs in the trade if you look at what it was that we lost in the volume of the trade a lot of that is small and medium businesses. the same who don't want to fill out tax forms or be harassed by more government regulation and just walk away from trade with canada because it has becom too much of hustle and there are canadian smallusinesses that have done the same command tourists who don't want to get a passport for the kids in the back of the minivans of the desire to go to disney and the u.s. and of canada wonderland and son. we need to think about the compliance cost. we do believe in regulation that we need to make sure we are being reasonable and thinking about the cost of doing what we are doing. >> let's move to the next topic

of energy and environment. we touched a little bit on doherty wheel and climate change and both are hot topics and both countries, so i guess just as a general question where are we headed on the issue of, a unit of canadian energy experts to the united states and on climate change because we know we in canada the government in canada said that they want to move in lockstep on the issue with the obama administration. david, do you want to start off? >> canadians are bumping the gates of incoherence of the american approach and the total lack of an energy i wouldn't say policy, but set of priorities. nancy losi famously said she wanted energy to do three things, energy the was clean, secure and cheap. anybody that has looked at the issue knows you can maybe get to of the three but you cannot get three and it's one of these cycles where abc, bbc, where you

have radical determinants and policy and a complete round of wage 3g boardwalk. the united states really needs to first leaders need to be forthright with the public about two of free but one party takes one side, almost like shirts and skins. sign randomly. one party takes one side and another party takes the other and then you see which one wins and you give it that way because in the ordering of the three would produce a better reult. there is no rancor ordering of the street. if you decide that when you want is time limits that's your top priority and the security for example is your last priority than the oil sands don't look so good. they are very secure but comparatively expensive and not clean. but americans are not at that level of trade off yet and so canadians are going to be waiting for a fundamental

american understanding. not first that they must choose and what choices will be. >> in the term to play pollyanna i am going to say that there has been a great degree of convergence the last few years on the broad question of climate change, call it what you will. if you go back eight, ten years, canada within the process, americans were out. we were lecturing the amerins out why weren't they playing ball and the were adopting the traditional superiority position on this even though we were not coming anywhere close to hitting our own targets. now you have it processed the americans are engaged in, it's a different process, it is post kyoto,ne more to the liking of canada as well, and the current government of canada is saying we are going to target our policy with the americans decide what they are going to do. so where you hav a lot of discord and finger-pointing back-and-forth in the past is much more convergence now whether you agree with where the

converged is a different matter that is less of what it seems to me if friction between the two countries. islamic to lten carefully it starts to become a recurring theme. we agreed after years of arguing and having difficulties had to not do much and then so everyone is fine with it. but whether it was fine with not doing much it is true that after about two years of arguing canada should have a made in canada climatchange policy which meant rejecting kyoto steven harper realized the main chance lay in claimingto want to billy climate change policy with the americans which essentially meant bidding on obama's inability to get much done. in so many things harper turned out to be why is better. so now that he's serious, cap-and-trade scheme is dead in congress and we are happy to have a climate change partnership with the americans.

it's been a companion of the climate change partnership with the americans? there isn't a giant wall, where we have different climate on either side. >> we plan to have partnership with the americans and the rest of the hemisphere in the world. last time i checked we don't have a climate parameter from canada and the united states either. you know, so either everyone does something to get your or each country does its part -- >> i think that's where we are headed. [inaudible] >> we did have an acid rain agreement between the two countries and all the predictions about how much it would cost proven to be wrong, the health benefits have proven to exceed that. canada and the united states is involved in the montreal protocol and started with 16 cotries on the ozone depleting thematerials and it's on to 185 countries and its decrease more and kyoto in the world. i know that fact isn't used because it's not understood a lot and it doesn't lead the news and we are obviously think that

is a good vehicle. it does make sense to havethe same reduction target as the united states and will not be easy to reach anybody that says 17% by 2020 is going to be easy to reach and is just a well it's nothing. i was involved in ying to reduce the amount. that is not going to be an easy target to reach. now it does make sense to have the same vehicle emissions standard with trucks and vehicles because we have the same auto industry and people say why should you go -- people say you should lead instead of follow or have the same policy on cars. thousands of people working in the car inustrit's good for the air and it's good for the economy to have a harmonize regulation approach which actually exceeded california because it spoke in air-conditioning. we are going ahead in some areas on our own. the regulations tabled by the minister of the coal plants are way beyond the draft standar

that it interpreted in different ways by the media way beyond wh is being proposed here in the united states. now the united states may go further with the epa and by not sure they will but i think in some areas we are going to be down 50 present of the coal emissions in canada and not oy good for the ghg but other things. >> i just heard we can't do that. >> why can't we? >> well, that's my question to the estimate we can do it by regulation council, and here the -- >> it is the actual example -- >> we signed an order in council. we tabled, worked together with the epa and announced the new regulation change on the same day and it was good for the auto industry and it was good for the clean air. >> khanna doubles as a the coal-fired emissions quicker than the united states because you've got this natural abundance of queen hydro and

less of an entrenched shall we say coal lobby. what i want to say about energy though is that it tends to invert the traditional a summitry. when you think abut energy, canada really is the superpower. canada has got it and we needed and whether it is traditional fossil fuels orqueen hydro or uranium ore the electricity grid, canada is in the driver's seat might not realize it, but it is worried about things like low carbon fuel standards which 20 or 40 of the united states are proposg which would disadvantage the canadian crude if they don't get enacted properly and the question i have about that is why are we always talking abut carvin as the only measure of whether or not fuel is good or bad? carbon is an important element to be we all want to get to a lower carbon economy but what about the low conflict standards? why don't you look at the debate, canadian diamonds are considered the most strategic to

get in the world because they are the blood is the same democratic so when you look at something that you can just carbon which is important that ad where do you want to get your next beryl's oil as lng as you are addicted to leal would you rather get from a bad guy who hates the united states or get it from canada which is a great partner and by the way the dollars it recycled into the economy? like it needs to be retrained. >> some of the issues on the oil sands go right to that. to david's point, a lot of the pictures people have on their mindo the open mining that you see and northern alberta, a lot of that stuff and a lot of the new activity in the oil sands is now in a statute which isn't massive mining opeations and big scars on the land and take a true and go straight down and you can hardly see it from the air it is such a small otprint. and a lot of the clean

technology for the extraction is coming out of it as a whole new industry that is developing around that. so we need to educate canadians about that but also make that point so there is the two points on the so-called dirty oil that it's not so dirty on the carvin side and also not so much in terms of taking it out. >> as a job asa former politician pointing to one of the differences of political debate and policy which it obscured because we now have 24 or news cycle and the internet and everybody is an amateur convent and some people are amateur think tank and we are trying to shed light but what happens in the the date is the ends obscure the means to be the focus that nafta is going to create hundreds of jobs, some people losing their jobs and to find jobs in other sectors. the promise ishere but people don't see the details and that are disappointed at the results. we talk about canadian oil and what scotty astelin this is there are this and you were mentioning, all of that is a

model obscure. they want a corrine climate or cheap gas because i've got to get to work tomorrow, so i think that we sometimes suffer from having a shallow debate at the level of those ends and not really talking more out how we get the means going together and respecting the fact that it is complicated and it is just the only way it is complexgh and ris help in that regard with a little more focus on secure and cheap oil rather than the environmental concerns where people are weighing the balance. some actors the macrofuels' brought into the debate some people that basically say we should go to copenhagen in a kayak and therefore not go on an airplane and fossil fuels so

that is part of the debate in every country including here. and i would say so i don't what the cost is the issue one, the oil sands have got to be as on the emissions so we totally reliant on the energy reliability and security and not told the story of the emissio 80% higher than the conventional wheel 15 years ago and down to 18% said they are actually below california servile oe alana venezuela so it's got to continue to improve. it's a work in progress so that is part of our challenge. secondly, where the pipline is having a discussion in washington there's lots of voices against it in this town, but in montana, in north daota, south dakota, kansas, not nebraska, oklahoma, texas, and we also worked with the company to get the oil from north dakota

on to thatpipeline which acally improves the situation. another thing the oil companies have to do in canada is mature people understand the jobs connected,ot just direct concern but we have taken about a year but there is 400 companies and the united states that supply material and oil in canada. finally, i think it was the governor from montana but said it best. i don't send my national guard to risk their lives to edmonton. they are in the middle east, and that is a strong argument, that is not the only argument we can make. it's got to be jobs, it's got to be improvement in the emissions and i think that's very important. ..

>> canada is claiming sovereignty over the arctic. is that a useful debate to have for these two countries, paul? >> the prime minister campaigned on it originally because the conservatives have a legitimate, longstanding honorable interest in developing the north and asserting indeed the canadian civilization goes right up to the north pole. a picturesque and attractive to voters, he asserted, saying that there were pressing threats agnst canadian sovereignty in the north and b canada could ever defend unilaterally against those. quietly, that silly position has been modifying and the five years e prime minister has been the prime minister and american sailors are on canadian naval boats patrolling the north

even the vicious norwegians are sometimes invited in and the terrifying russians. >> not the danes. >> right, not the danes. [laughter] the real work going forward by the fourth of -- force of necessity will become a fascinating and exciting place for cooperation of our two countries and others in the future. now that our government i getting over it and claims it can stop american nuclear subs. >> you really have a thing about this. you really have a thing about this. me too. about how the prime minister somehow had to change his policy on this. the conservatives do have a long-standing history going back to baker and a vocal way on this. there are threats. i don't think they are the traditional threats. we have been doing some studying on this at the defense and national security committee.

we do have russian incursions. everybody is testing their equipment. probably one of the biggest concerns that people have out there is the presence of the chinese and in incredible numbers. they are doing all sorts of activities there. we need cooperation to figure that out. there is a relatively small pointed dispute between canada and america on this and they think we are going to continue to actually work cooperatively. we are going to take over control of canada, the arctic council shortly and that is going to be followed by several years of americans taking control over that. so we are on the right trajectory on this discussion. it doesn't mean we don't have issues to deal with and we are starting to see other issues emerge. the chinese human smuggling, other questions like that weren't on people's minds when we were talking about simple sovereignty and that we would plant the flag and send our ships. the sutures are real because the globe is shrinking and we have

to deal with it that i think that we are on a corporative path, and every time we sort of move from something that was a war or a battle or you know some other approach to something that works, i think actually people who are involved in making that happen should be given some credit as opposed to criticize for it. it is not like you know we have some stupid position and -- these things have to be worked out and we have to have that discussion and we had to know what was real and people had to put resources on the ground to figuret out. >> senator -- [inaudible] >> we can't depend on the the to line for northern. the technologies change. there is going to be a different thing than it used to be.

>> if what canada is after in the arctic is environmental protection and surveillance, why make the issues of sovereignty? are the americans interested in the same thing? >> well yeah but we can have sovereignty if you a going to cooperate with aericans. i actually think everybody wants to spend a lot more time in the arctic has it is nothing and in the next couple of decades it is going to be navigable and there are huge issues that are really expense up there. we rent halifax -- not only have we not mapped it and the russians and others trying to figure it where the resources are in all of that and a precious part of the planet, but also you have to start to navigate by the stars when you get out there. we need a constellation of satellites up there and we needed not just for the military and the coast guard protection that we needed for commercial purposes and we also need are the way it seems to me when you

start talking about things like communications or remote communities in the north in canada. there are a lot of very pensive things that need to be done that require public credit partnerships, that require canada-u.s. collaboration and ingenuity. blackberries are a fantastic canadian invention, but they partnered with intel for the parts in the early days. canada in and the u.s. if we work together, and if we get public-private collaboration, can do a lot of amazing this. search-and-rescue, absolutely. >> when you talk to people in american military even though the impression is the u.s. military is the the biggest and as all of these resources, they have a lot of missions around the world in places like afghanistan, iraq and the south china sea. although the arctic missi is important and president bush to put us on a path to having a stronger presence there and be able to take on these functions and president obama pick that up and has continued it, there are only so many dollars to go-round and at a time in capitol hill

talking about budget cuts we are gointo have to be smart about the investments we make and isn't this an area where bilaterally we can get more done togeer and share the cost, share the burdens were the benefit of taxpayers rather than wasting money fighting. >> i think we are going to try to work on the -- see together brown the broader issue we may agree to disagree and the united states doesn't look at waterways as a one off. they are making decisions on the other the straits of hormuz making decisions on waterways in a much broader security environment. so a lot of us would like to have just this one unique challenge on our sovereignty and how we manage it. but it is mark obligated for the united states because they have grter geosecurity issues and more places and i don't like having a one-off sition that may prejudice and hurt them in other places. as far as i can tell in my short involvement here.

>> as much as canada and u.s.. is a understand th virtually nobody else in the world agrees with our position. >> yeah that is right. >> as long as we don't claim sovereignty on it. [inaudible] >> we have lots of agreements and lots of various and this is one where we don't have one. >> let's talk about defense and canada's role in afghanistan because that is a role that senator wallin is very familiar with and she worked on the commission advising the government on how to proce with the mission. we have lost 154 canadian soldiers. it seems to me that is one area where the americans are very aware of the role canada plays or is played from a time when i think the u.s. had pretty much given up hope on the capabilities of the canadian military to now hold them in

relatively high esteem. what does that do for the relationship? >> i think we have earned enormous credit for what we have done so far. i think we were in jeopardy of sacrificing a lot of that goodwill by the abrupt decision of the prime minister in the middle of the campaign to adopt the position on this which was we were going to go home and 2011, exactly the arbitrary deadlines he has rejected before. it is fortunate that i accommodation of circumstances he has been browbeaten, shamed and pressured into at least extending the mission beyond 2011 in a training capacity. but i hope that we will step it up the on that. i think there is hard work sill to be done there and the americans don't get to go home so i'm not sure why we get to unilaterally decide we are going home. >> afghanistan should open a much better discussion in canada. canada needs to make a generational commitment to return as a security power. there is something weirdly lopsided and -- with the way

canada deals with the world. i remember when i was a while ago in the days before modern computers i was working at "the wall street journal" and i would have canadians visit me all the time who would say none of the media and the united states pay any attention to anything that goes on in canada. what you would see are the dow jones wires originated in canada. granted oath of them worked -- [laughter] but canada has this on arms role in american finance and american trade and commerce. about what canadians want to be consulted also on the security aspect of the relationship where canada has to bring more to the party if it is to carry the weight the canadians expect and that they deserve this of their importance and all of these other areas. that is something that has to be really adopted as part of canadian political culture.

i remember going back a long time is a high school student writing a paper on the canadian decision to downgrade the world and germany and the late 60s. the cable cross in the library of book passionately denouncing this idea which was written by a democratic member of parliament. there was this kind of lost civilization in which they were, he was a veteran of course and there were new democrats who has young people fought on those battlefields and who were as people of the left wanted to nationalize the banks and all that but when it came time to defend canada and its allies they were on the same sight. this is something that has to be read soared across the canadian political spectrum. canada once a voice in the world. it is paid the blood price in afghanistan. what is kind of shocking now has to paid in cash prize rebuilding afghanistan. >> i think we we are really

saying that. at the beginning there was a may think there was a lot of politics around this decision if we weren't going to iraq and we would go to afghanistan and it was the good war and iraq was a bad war and it was all that sort of thing. >> what if we win the betor? >> exactly. but we went in i think what increasingly happened is we started to appreciate that we had sent our men and women ill equipped and those stories started to filter home and it was not for lack of enthusiasm and it is still true today. you stand on these forward opera and bases in the middle of afghanistan and you ask how many people are on their third, or their fifth tour in almost all of the hands go up. we don't have a mandatory two or duty in afghanistan. people at the volunteer or that in the canadian military. so they are there and they are there not for the good weather. they are there because they actually think they're making a difference. and that is translated back homeand we havstarted to

provide as one of the things the independent panel recommended as we had to get our men and women some air support to get them up off the ground so they were having their legs blown off b going down these ied written roads. so we made some progress. we are about to have that debate again about the f-35, that you can't just say okay we are going to do our bit in afghanistan and then we are going to go home on some arbitrary date. i certainly have disagreed with that position. if you are there you are there until a job is done that now we are the other side of it as we are starting to see a commitment that we don't know what tomorrow's fight will be our next year's fight will be and we need to have a military that is properly equipped because i think what people have come to appreciate is something david was alluding to. we all have this memory of the canadian image in world war ii, and we became peacekeepers somehow ahough the numbers didn't actually substantiate whether or not we really were peacekeepers of the world. we didn't break that high

amongst the world and now we are seeing a guinness people who have somehow merged the two fierce warriors and humanitarians, and that is something canadians have truly -- virtually comfortable with now, that we can do both and i think we he on the backs and men and women in afghanistan put ourselves back at the table of people who are considered serious players when it comes to security and that ismazing, given how the numbers are so low >> let me pick up on something you talked about. we focus on much on the hardware aspect of this debate. all of the new equipment that the soldiers had, have been given which as been great but the software side is just as important. the united states has changed its counterinsurgency doctrine. we are very different than we were in world war ii or korea to fight alongside. almost no one fights alongside as well as the canadians do because you have been in the trenches with us. you have learned how we fight

now, and now by taking on a aining role, by continuing to be involved in afghanistan you can give to the danes, the dutch, the germans and other real insight. >> but i think there is a feeling in a lot of canadian societies that when it comes to something like afghanistan canadians can't say no if there is pressure on the americans because there will be consequences. >> is not just america. this is a nato mission, u.n. endorsed at the end invitation of the u.n. government. the americans weren't there in great enough numbers although certainly much larger than ours, but even talking to senior amicans to your very point about learning to work with each other, a senior american general ying to us sitting in a meetg room over in the kandahar airfield, you know, if i could put every single american soldier under canadian command i would, because you

guys have actually figured out how to work this on the ground. the problem for american soldiers it is, because you are often unpopular in places that you go, you travel in larger numbers for self protection, for force protection. canadians when you are talking about a clear and hold strategy and going into villages to protect it we put down our arms and go in and stay there for two or three days or a week or a month or whatever it takes. everybody strategy has evolved and we really have worked together. now the question is, you know what do you have? it is not just the canada-u.s., its what is nato and the future? what do we respond to? who decides these issues and what is going to their be our overall level of commitment? >> peter, we have said no to vietm. we haveaid no to iraq and we did say yes right at the initial stages -- i wasn't trying to be a politician.

but thank you very much. it was tough. iraq was tough because the brits and the americans ran and i know is emotionally very difficult. it was difficult and people would have different views on the wisdom of that decision here in the room. i can say one thing. the canadian soldiers that i know, not just in the embassy by ople i know and the 17 wing or other members of the military i know just as friends, they did not want to go in with everyone and leave ahead of pple. for a number of reasons, to complete the mission with their allied team and secondly, in honoof those people that did die in afghantan. i just think that is something to consider because those people that ar -- risking their lives

to care about completing the mission. >> when chris sands talked about hardware and software, i thought chrissy meant maybe a little bit more than just dferent military doctors and counterinsurgency versus software. also having eyes and ears in different parts of the world where next year's fight might be coming. in june in 2000 her and i were here and june 2001 andrew and i were here in washington where people tald about, i don't know if you were here andrew people talked about the threats ahead in henry kissinger was in the room and brzezinski. there was a shooting war in georgia a couple of years ago. there is no canadian democracy promotion agency with an office in georgia. we were blind, deaf and dumb. there is a scurrilous attempt by the government of belarus to steal yet another election. that canada's ambassador in warsaw has a credit haitian

because our policy is we don't talk to the belarusian government which means we have, we have no capability there. our american friends have learned you never kw where the next flight or the next opportunity is going to come from so your diplomatic corps has to be present and active and have freedom of maneuver around the world, and our last few governments i think have deluded themselves into thinking you can shrink the world into productive will threats and opportunities. it just ain't so. >> very quickly. >> as quickly i think it is really clear that in the question of afghanistan, the way canada has served in that has an incredibly important for canada and on principles that is at a benefit to the canadian relationship with the united states. and you contrast that very is very serious and very real contribution on the world stage with a different political decision it a different day in canada.

in canada have the opportunity to be a partner with the u.s. with ballistic missile defense at no cost to made -- canada and canada were to us as we so. so i think when you take something seriously and you take a position whether not the united states agrees or disagrees, we respected. and i think the challenge is to have very serious debate about the global threats and make a decision that way. i think the united states has to respect whatever candidate does if that is the way it is presented. >> but we so have to understand there are consequences and there are -- there were two the ballistic missile defense. >> their work consequences. >> howden norad had to split into different. >> we have time for one last topic. it might be interesting as well and that is just sort of attitude. what do canadians think the americans and vice ver? who would like to start? >> i will art without.

wi that. my favorite subject. okay, so when i was appointed to go to auto was during the second term of the clinton administration i bought a tour book because i wasn't sure what the capital of canada was. of the canadians can joke about american ignorance to canada. i was ignorant, and wind and loved it, fell in love with the country. is spectacular but what shocked me was the level of anti-americanism that was there. and that was during the clinton years. i can imagine what u.s. diplomats and the americans that serve during the bush years must feel. i just think that there is a serious anti-americanism. now in contrast in the united states there may be some ignorance but we have done a lot of polling and survey research in the canadian american business council and the truth is as worrieds canadians are about not respected enough, americans to the extent they

know anything about canada, they love it and if they don't know anything they're willing to give canada the benefit of of the dow. >> i don't think i've seen a poll that is that canada is the u.s. best friend. >> i don't know about best friends. were not sure about best friends but we love canada and would love the place and we think they are nice and all of that. canadians don't really play that up enough. there is a huge beneficial art fair in american public opinion that i think canadians are surprised about. >> it is too simple to say that it is anti-americanism. it depends whi question you ask. i think it is very conflicted. we are in a very productive period of confusion right now. because for the longest time we in canada particularly were basing our sense of nationhood on artificially embellished differences. we relied upon characters of ourselves and the americans and in themselves americans with a free-market country were more a big government country when in

fact up until the early 60s we were the smaller government country. it is a recent self-image of ourselves of the suite of north america. so now we are in a state where we have had a couple of very intereing debates happen in the last two years. what is in canada. we had this big fight over the long gun registry where i think a lot of people were shocked to discover the remains of gun overs -- gunowners in canada so the notion that we left their doors unlocked at night in those michael moore stuff complete fiction. >> gesture border patrol. >> similarly to come the americans to talk about universal or near universal health care which if you invested a great deal of your sense of self and the idea that would make the difference in the markets as they don't have universal health care we are shocked at that kind of nationalist but i think with those things going on and what the state of our economy and things like the olympics i do think there is a much more growing sense of innate self-confidence and canadians that doesn't locate itself in drawing the artificial things

that is an threatened by the idea that maybe we have a lot in common with our northern neighbors. actually think things are improving in that regard. >> i want to have a meeting with the state governor at one point to say, because there was a big phase of by american and bistate only in a post-11 te and going in and saying look, this is going to cost your state hundreds of jobs and you buy canadian products and there are canadian plants and you have got jobs at stake and all the rest. he looked at me really puzzled and coul't figure out why, display and what i was talking about. he said no, no the legislation is -- foreigners. i said yeah and we are a foreign country. he said well we didn't mean you. and sometimes you are often caught in the net because they don't mean us. >> i have an exact opposite story. i hope this proves retailing but i'm hoping my friend had it right. my friend was in kuwait in 1994 when the iraqis a mass troops on

the border for the second time in people thought there was gog to be a second more. canadians who were there were issued by the embassy as a buzzer device like you get when you go to e cheesecake factory. the instructions they were given were existing buses, don't pack a bag, just get a toothbrush and get your family go to the embassy compound. there you will be picked up by a helicopter lifted to an aircraft carrier. canadice and have helicopters and certainly doesn't have aircraft carriers and of course it was completely taken for granted. it was the americans job to do this for canada. i tried to explain that there were two absolutely unforgivable mistakes that you can make in dealing with canadiansnd one is to forget that canada is an independent, sovereign foreign country and the other is to remember. [laughter] i hear this thing about every bill on the hill we have to clarify that over and over and over again.

but the pew resear report recently came out and said you know that the americans preferred to trade with canada 76% higher than any other country and you will notice in the midterm elections there was lots of anti-trade ads in terms of jobs. mostly focused in at the person who has just left for chicago today in his country. i think that is very positive. i actually think from the time i have come here, used to like a little bit of th american swagger that i used to see here as premier and certainly i saw -- i am actually going to american businesses and saying, you know, it would be bad to get a little bit, the bit of your swagger back because really when you look at the american economy and the entrepreneurs and the universities and the creativity and the inventions and they products, i think american business has to get a little bit more positive in the public arena. i actually think more quietly, actually think there is benefit

benefit of a coss here in terms of canadian confidence quietly and american swagger that has been reduced in the less period of time and a little bit of that is not pho bravado but a little bit of confidence in getting that message out to the american public is good for america but it is also good for those of us who want to sell to america. so i want american business to get a little bit of their swagger back. i think it is good. >> there is a dimension and to some extent this brings us back to where we started. there's a dimension to this which has to do with nationalism. canadians remember the days when they were dealing with the québec nationalists who were pushing ba. when you define a nation, you draw a line around us and then there is is the them. when americans were nationalist after 9/11 you were us, we were them and it made it harder to manage the relationship. and canadians became nationalistic around the olympics and they have been pushing back a little bit of makes you more confident but it makes you them and us or us dumb and you are us i think.

[laughter] >> we know what you mean. so i think they're going to be these periods in our relationship where we are both pushing a little bit and getting on the other sinners by reminding each other we are different in a way that doesn't, isn't intended to be insulting but sometimes seems that wa >> as we summa wikileaks lately lately -- [inaudible] some of our tv shows depict his swaggering america's to take over the police investition. it sounds from what i'm hearing is that there is a back-and-forth and sometimes it is an priority complex and sometimes it is a security complex. >> it is a manifestation of the inferiority complex. >> here is what i think it is. i think we need some metaphors in the relationship and i'm glad we are going to bury the elephant in the mouse and it doesn't apply to more. the metaphor i think we have

with a great deal of respect to the media because i'm outnumbered appear, is i think we suffer from what i would call binocular center and the binoculars syndrome is i am canada, you were the united states. i'm looking at you through these for not lears and you were looking me through the same set of binoculars. when canada was with the united states everything seemed eager and closer than it really is. at the other looked through innocuous backwards everything seemed smaller and fuzzier. the binoculars, you are never going to invite me back a miss the canadian media. we need to get rid of the binoculars and see each other for who we really are and not suffer from too far away and too blurry or two up in your face because it is really and i think you started the discussion this when ambassador it is a great partnership and a great friendship. i don't know for your be friends but we are definitely not perfect strangers and we just need to be realistic about what it is all about. >> the canadian people and erican people are pretty good friends i think most of the time and what we are starting to

realize this week i'll hate washington. [laughter] >> we are talking about the relationship between canada and the united states. our topic tonight is canada-u.s. best friends are perfect straers? it has been an interesting discussion and now it is time to hear from our members of the audience. let's start over here. go ahead. >> my name is printed on the washington burea office for the canadian manufactures and exports so i spent a lot of time watching wt is happening in washington. two observations in one question. my first observation is after 20 years of being in washington d.c. i've never heard the canada-u.s. relationship in

terms of carbon monoxide. i don't know what to do about that. i just took note of it. and the second one is, smart border come efficient border, it is a border. it is an oxymoron and i think we need to have a healthy debate about border rather than a smart border and efficient border might make us feel better to talk in those terms but a border is a border and third, getting back to jobs, let me just repeat that. let's get back to jobs. i haven't heard much about manufacturing on today's panel. my mufactures, small and medium-size, they are doing a very brisk dialogue with their key west business partners. that conversation is brisk, it is dynamic, a lot of mojo, a lot of swagger, thank you very much. we are very bullish on north american manufacturing. the conversation is l about right now growth, product

growth, job growth in the s. export growth. so while canadian exports abroad to third countries may be rising in contrast to the united states, it might be the commodities. it might be by value, but components, widgets, auto parts, electronic parts. it is going north from the united states from alabama and north carolina. is going south from ontario to alberta. >> you have a question for a panel? >> so my question is. you can say is spent a lot of time thinking about this. my question is things are moving rapidly. the president of china's income. $74 billion in contracts announced. minutes two or three years, this panel, what i would like to hear, where's the competitive advantage that canada and the united states will enjoy and who will enjoy it? >> i think you can say manufacturing is a competitive and one of the challenges we have is how we perceive it. u.s. manufacturing output isp

but manufacturing employment is down, so we tend to think of it is a declining sector. everyone wants a high-tech job or a green job and it in a fracturing still employs a lot of people. it has just become more automated than it has been and what that is created is not a tension with the service sector but a whole new service sector managing supply chains. the logistics, the quality and assurance up and down the supply chain that dozens of companies in the production of a product that you know from the name brand that is on it when you buy it. that is the reality of our economy that most of us don't perceive and at one of the strength of of the canadian american relationship is in the management of supply chain. that is why we are so competitive. canadians who speak their language know the way we like to build thingsnd can come to american supply chain to look for efficiencies, ways we can become more productive and americans can teach some canadians business is a thing or two as well. this is a home area and don't talk about the mag's jobs versus the good old-fashioned blue-collar jobs.

they are much more white-collar, green green educated job, high tech jobs while at the same time they are a lot more invisible than they used to be. >> brigid you asked about in two years where rarity in this conversation and i tnkome of that has to do with the conversation we haven't talked about it all yet which is mexico. and canada-u.s. relations there is often a question about whether or not you trilateral eyes and how do you work that? that is an active conversation even now and where we go in manufacturing will depend upon how our border policy goes, whether supply chains can become more efficient and as david pointed out ord policy and interior in the united states difference in the northern border and the reason i point out mexico tonight is if you look at the figures that have come out, the mexican auto sector has outpaced the canadian auto sector this year inrowth. a great canadian company magnet which sells auto parts has 48

plants in mexico whereas in 2001 they had every single one. i do think we have to figure out without trilateral icing the relationship because i don't want to do that, we have to fire out what the deal is a north american how they want to compete economically in the space versus the rest of the world. >> just a quick note on how differences and tensions have diminished over time. you talked earlier about what is a product becomes difficult is things are made both side of the border supply chain and one interesting consequence of that is here we have the canadian dollar now that is above parity with of the american dollar and it is not -- that it would have in the past. even as they are taking a hit on the sales side they are saving money on the input side and it just shows you the degree to which those economies have become so much more tightly integrated over time. speech is a quick thing on what the canadian product, great canadian company has a new jet

called the c series. it is manufactured in the back but it is 55% american parts, so is it a canadian plan because it was made there or an american plane because it is mostly our stuff? it has also got some chinese parts in there. >> i think the u.s. created and manufacturing test scores led by think mr. bloom who was also involved in a bilateral relationship on the ongoing history. we were quite frankly very worried with what would be in that report and it was actually quite fair in terms of dealing with the manufacturing jobs on both sides of the border. if you go out the door here you will notice there is a flyer from winnipeg that is also completed in st. cloud because of the buy america provision back in 82 and notwithstanding. >> by american works. >> we of the jobs in winnipeg and a few in st. cloud and it is perfect. th got quickly to the low

emission buses because california actually buys more buses that all of canada and for aerospace. again if you get there quickly and you train your workforce you are going to be, to have the agility and as you know, to be on the leading edge of building products and therefore having the jobs. i think the dollar used to be an advantage. it is not any more. i think most workers knew that was happening slowly. sometimes it happen much typically. the corporate tax rate when you compare it with the united states is now lower in canada. when the dollar goes up that is very important factor. the training, we are getting more people graduating from the out of her college's post-secondary facilities, not just the traditional universities but also on the scope side. we have to continue to do that in my view. the r&d incentives are very positive as well. but we won't be able to compete with the united states or integrate with united states or compete in the world unless the

worker today is using computers and desns right on the shop floor and we have got to make sure our education system is absolutely the best they can be because otherwise we will not have those manufacturing jobs. >> is going to continue to be a relationship with united states. one of canada's largest trading relationships is between home depot head office in atlanta georgia and home depot and canada. one of our largest trading relationships. >> candidate does more business with home depot than it does with france. [laughter] absolutely. >> you get better service from home depot. [laughter] >> my name is medea benjamin and i work with the human rights group called global exchange and appease group called code pink. is part of my work i traveled all around the world and i wonder if you could guess the one country that i have not been allowed in?

>> you are here in the u.s.. >> i have been rejected in the last two years three times, every time i've tried to go to canada and i have been told canada is sharing a database called the national criminal investigative database, it a cic and that my name appears as having been arrested three times for non-violent civil disobedience processing these wars. this is happened not only with myselfut to many colleagues and impact we went to your lovely embassy here to compln and they were given an 18 page process to try to go through that is not only time-consuming but practically in my case impossible, and it was to get rehabilitated so that we would then be able to go back to canada. so i wonder what it is about using this database. i heard that this is the only country right now sharing this database but the plans are to share it with other countries

meeting will be not be able to go to these other countries and what can we do to not have this happen to people like myself? >> ivan had a situation, or a case like this brought to my attention so i can't give you a good answer to your specific question. i have had lots of people and lots of senators raised the issue of people that have had convictions forrinking and driving, and even after long period of time, there is still that prohibition and that information of sharing so i don't know abouthe situation of peaceable protests and where that fits so i can't give you good answer. do you think this database and they say that you have no misdemeanor so whatever is a misdemeanor here gets bumped up in canada and is a reason not to let peop in? i just wonder about the sharing of this and why should you even having canada information about my arrest in the united states for a misdemeanor? >> even before 9/11, we did share information about

potential arrest. but i do know the people -- make the biggest number of cases we get as they say are drinking and driving cases that happened a long time ago when people are arguing there should be an appeal. it is still on their criminal records so i can't answer your specific question and i'm not going to try to have been an answer but i will look at the specifics of what what you have asked. >> tiberian i gr up in port huron. byplay travel a hockey so i was there for a week. my question is, suppose you watched over the last year our debate on the health care issue in the united states. we spent an entire year where we were not even allowed to discuss universal health care or the public option. and then finally, there was a vote and we finally got some type of health care program. now, yesterday, the opposition

party that came into power suddenly decided for political reasons to take that away from us. now, i wonder how canadians see this, seeing as how you do have a system of health care that everybody iable to enjoy, whether everyone likes it or not or, but everyone is ae to enjoy that particular system. my other quick question is, what i hear from you on this panel is that you seem to be fighting in a war in afghanistan that has been chosen by the united stat and that you you are sending your children off to fight a war and you were spending money on a war that rally is the united states choice and you seem to be swept up into it. and i'm wondering, since over two-thirds of americans today do not want to be in this war in afghanistan, and i am sure it must be equally as much in canada, why are governments not

listening to us and getting us out of these crazy wars? >> lets dealith health care first. >> i will answer the first question. watching the american health care debate i have to say, i thought what could be more canadian than to be having a massive nervous breakdown about some imagined threat to your health care system? the only difference was in the united states the threat was the public option and in canada we go bananas over private option. but in both cases you know i think cooler heads eventually prevailed on those. what was striking me also was how little currency actually the canadian option and they american debate. we have a lot of work to be done on it and anyone who and america thinks we have the perfect system i'm telling you we don't. is a gre system but it needs a lot of work. you don't have universal coverage but more or less people get treated where is in canada we have universal coverage but you been a long time to be

treated. those stories are not just myths. each country has its own health care system and we are both working to achieve what i think is the best of both worlds which we uversal coverage and yet efficiency and competitive dynamics within that system so you were getting the best bang for the buck. >> you know know i think obviously we wouldn't want americans telling what to do in canada on our health care system and i was very aware that coming here. what surprised me is that fact in canada we built this system piece by piece over a long. of time including the proposal that that came in and was paid for right up front in terms of hospitalization because farmers are losing their farms if they didn't have a room in saskatchewan. senator wahlen's problem. and another things were added piece by piece by piece by pie. and it is the end result and one of the issues the canadian system was defined by people who are oppod opposed to all health care in this country but what shocked me ishat there

wasn't a more gradual approach to dealing with preexisting conditionsor kids, preexisting conditions for laid-off workers, cost affordability on state plants across states to save money. if i was giving advice i would go to items on access and two items on cost. tort reform was not even -- it was not even touched and so here in canada you talk about competitive advantages. and i'm saying nobody has a perfectystem, but the cost of gdp in canada is about 11.5% and it irising over 18% in the united states. that is huge, huge issue particularly when you look at the imploding entitlement of the demographics in this country versus hours. that will be in it bandage for the manufactures. >> that cost differential points to one area. one of the reasons -- don't think it is 18% but it is

moving. maybe it was 17 when -- [inaudible] one of the reasons the american system cost much more and there areany reasons is that providers and i don't just mean doctors and nurses but all elements of the system are much more expensive in the united states. one example is the pharmaceutical industry. as the american titan the bolts there are going to be pressures to squeeze providers including pharmaceutical companies. the pharmaceutical company will say wait a moment yes it is true we do charge a lot in the united states because this is where we can recover our tacoma cost and we can't have if they're going to be drugs for the world almost all of which are in the united states, and if american companies companies are not allowed to recover all of their costs inside of the united states which the campy, they will have to be recovered somewhere else. and this is a think i see a real

area of future aberration. >> one of the things i was fascinating about the health care debate here was the extent that canadians got dragged into it. we were talking with you about health care and we were talking about you. it is funny because the united states and if the -- past couple of years is ideolical. at present somewhat by the utopian on the other side's disaster. ordinary commonsense people want to say well, in between all of those dire and utopian predictions what is going to happen? canada, it is similar enough for americans and no insult intended, that they feel it to work there why can't it work here? of the debate had to get into the details of the canadian system. people want to know, canadians haven't turned communist. they haven't gotten sick or. there are issues but i want a practical demonstration of how some of these theories really work. we are going to have more shoes like that. we are going to be looking to canada as a laboratory reform much as california's or other

u.s. states are and you m turn around and turn to some of our states and look and see a laboratory as well. we have to learn to learn from each other and not get too worked up about the fact we are talking about each other behind their backs. >> paul on health care? >> a change of pace. it is true that if you ask in a poll, publ opinion poll, you get majorities in canada calling for a quicker withdrawal than a later withdrawal. and i would hate to see canada's foreign foreign-poli effort to find is what is the next war we can get into? that being said i get a little hot when i hear it argued that this was america's war and we got dragged into it. this was a sovereign choice candidate made to help a friend. [applause] and since we have a point of evidence senator wahlen's party that called usually, for a longer and more robust involvement in afghanistan has increased its advantage over every other party in every

election since 2001. >> i agree. i were to say it mean something to be an ally in that mean something to be in nato and our countries have collabored for decades. if you want to have the benefit of the nato alliance for example, and you have got to be willing to be an side-by-side, shoulder-to-shoulder and nobody is a better example of that in canada. i think candidate doesn't for its own reasons and the alliance and the friendship is valued here. >> microphone here. >> i am a media consultant and we work in both canada and the united states. >> how are we doing gary? how are we doing laura? >> i was interested in the amount of information that flows across t border. it is a one-way information flow. canadians receive all th american media and the americans receive very little canadian dia and i think that creates a certain barrier of information.

one of the problems is americans actually will readily tell you they don't know a lot about canada very specifically and perhaps the upper part for canada is they think they know more. and they form opinions based on that. so my question then, first of all i want to say that this forum here tonight is a wonderful example i think of helping to break that down. i think the millions of viewers and c-span and cpac watching us, think we will start to create -- i think it is a positive step forward all kidding aside. i think we need a lot more of that kind of -- how do you get across the border whether it is in media, whether it is the internet or new media and i wonder if there any oughts or concerns that the media could be doing a lot better job across differenbottles of telling the mutual stories? >> i just want to say i thought this last year was particularly great for canada because of the olympics and the timing of the olympics and the coverage that does place in the united states

but that is unusual. it doesn't happen obviously every year. thersome mention of canada and the financial papers dealing with banks. there was some mention about canada's post-secondary graduation rate again covered by some of the television stations. some coverage canada being thirbehind shanghai and finland on public education test results. , there is not a lot of coverage. i talked t a fairly prominent journalists, american journalist, who is very aware of canada a he made a point to me that our cameras, the last two times or cameras moved out of our studio to an embassy here in washington. one was covering the tragedy of haiti and the second time was covering the shootings in juarez to an embassy. so a lot of what happens in this town with the media is very much focused on american issues but wh it goes international, it is not always what you would prefer to have in terms of geing attentio

>> there should be a lot more for this reason. notches becausyou know canada is a neighbor and candide is terrifically important. here is i think the thing that we need so mu to teach each other. as societies they are the two most similar societies on the planet, more even i would argue that in germany and ausia. and yet they consistently produce very different results. why is that? that is because through accidents there have been two different sets of very different kinds of political institutions laid upon them which produce radically different results. and both countries can be inoculation to the other. the thgs that happen in the country happened because of the nature of the peop or the deep culture. a friend of mine w studies both countries close to me made this wonderful.. canadians believe candidate is a left-leaning country and america's a more right-wing country but if the united states

were governed by the canadian constitution to the 1980s the reagan years that would have been governor i prime minister tip o'neal. and that is an important thing for both amecans today and they can't do the same way. if canada have direct elections of its chief executive officer, think canada would have had a conserved conserved of chief executive officer for most of thperiod since world war ii and not a liberal chief executive officer. >> i agree with everything you said but that is n going to lead the news. >> a very short answer over here. >> i dthink part of the problem is just simply the size of the canadian market. we are 30 million people versus 300 million people. our media world is much smaller and so we consume and we use. all canadian telogen -- television networks have the remotewith american television networks to use the reports that they do because we have that

overriding interest. we are constantly watching american news. the american media does not need to do that. they don't need to buy a ctv or cbc story so it is just a case of the size of the market. >> is also true that we need to disintermediate this relationship a little bit more. i grew up in detroit and for most of you who haven't grown up in detroit you would imagine it is a war zone like living in baghdad because all the news out of detroit is dismal. but bad news leads. the united states is always putting out a phony image of ourselves. we don't have car chas all the time and we are not all having sex with everybody we meet and we are not as funny as we are on tv and ultimately we are not as if noxious on a panel as bill o'reilly and keith olbermann. [laughter] on that nte, that wl do it for questions and answers but we have time quickly to have pauline andrzej give us their final thoughts before we say good night.

>> off the top by since in your comments a nostalgia for a day when we took on these great big projects together like the free trade agreement like norad and nato etc the problem i think we are facing is our success. you can only strike the world's largest free trade agreement once and then you live with that. i think the success of that says that the issue now is much smaller. i rarely quote -- but i think in a situation where you manage one fall of the that may not be as exciting or glamorous but it is good news colin all. >> you sound like the guy that quit the patent office in 1905 because everything had been invented. [laughter] i have a hard time believe that two of the most blessed countries under the eye of god are going to say we don't know that, we built nafta, -- did a lot to bring the warsaw pact into nato. on 911 the air lakers gathered and now we are done.

i would like to think there was work ahead. >> there is. >> alright, well on that note i want to thank you all. thanks to her audience in canada and watching on cpac in our audience in the united states watching on c-span and our audience here at the newseum. thank you for coming folks. good to have you here. [applause] appreciate you joining us. and of course we will continue to watch for the candidate u.s. relationship takes us and we will be watching more closely in canada then you might not -- here. it has been a good discussion tonight and the chance to air some different points of view and we appreciate you showing up to participate. i am peter van dusen in washington and from all of us at >> sunday and "washington journal," the discussion of

foreign policy news of the week and a look ahead to president obama as stated the union speech on tuesday. then michael koplow talked about the unrest in tunisia and what that means for stability in that region. then the president-elect of the american college counseling association of the growing need for psychiatric services at u.s. colleges and universities. plusher e-mail's and phone calls. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> tomorrow, david dreier talk about the gop plans to cut federal spending. >> this weekend on "road to the white house, two speeches, rick

santorum and republican representative michelle bachmann. she was and i would to speak to a political action committee campaign in des moines -- she was in iowa. >> i know it is shocking when a girl goes to iowa, there is speculation that might come along, but i am here to be a part of that conversation for 2012. i certainly am part of the conversation. there has been no decision about a candidacy, but i want to be part of the conversation, most definitely. >> watch her speech in its entirety along with rick santorum is remarks tomorrow on "road to the white house." >> i have to practice staying alive and preparing to die at the same time. next sunday, our guest is

author, columnist, and contributing editor christopher hitchens. >> it is a rather tantalizing time to have cancer, some one of my age, because there are treatments i concede that are just out of reach. >> sunday on c-span q&a. >> now, to the state house in annapolis, maryland, for the second inauguration of democratic governor martin o'malley. he defeated former governor -- former lt. governor bob ehrlich. maryland's 61st governor was sworn in at an outdoor public ceremony where he delivered his inaugural address. it will also hear from the longest serving female u.s. senator, barbara mikulski. this is brought to us by maryland public television. it is about 25 minutes. ♪

>> repeat after me. i will support the constitution of the united states.

and i will be faithful and their true allegiance to the state of maryland. and support the constitution and laws thereof. and i will to the best of my skills and judgment, diligently and fatefully, with about - without partiality or prejudice execute the office of governor according to the constitution and laws of this state's. stat. state. i will not directly or indirectly receive the profits or any part of the profits of any other office during the term of my acting as governor. congratulations. [applause]

>> thank you.

>> enough for the introduction of governor o'malley to be presented by a national -- a nationally known person. she is the longest running senate member in the united states. [applause] she would be the first to tell you that the greatness is not in the longevity, but the quality of service. all of us who know senator mikulski, she has not lost the

common touch with the everyday man and woman. that makes her the greatest rep. united states senator barbara mikulski. [applause] >> good morning, everybody. what a beautiful day the lord has given us to bring us together in friendship, of a ship, and freedom. it is only the martin o'malley lot of the irish to bring out the sunshine on a day like today. do you remember the weather forecast? stormy weather. do you remember the economic forecast? stormy weather. governor o'malley is going to change that, too. it is a firm date for martin o'malley. a bad hair day for me. my heart is filled with joy

today. here we are for this historic occasion. it is the 77th inauguration of an american governor. ourin o'malley will become 64th governor sworn in for his second term at the oldest state capitol in continuous use. yesterday was also a special day for governor o'malley. it was his 48th birthday. shout give him an early sho out. [applause] inauguration's are usually about pomp and circumstance. given where our country and our state is, this inauguration is less about pomp and more about our circumstances we face

enormous and significant challenges. when times are tough, it calls for tough, strong leadership. you and i would agree that martin o'malley, for these tough times, is being strongly that will get us forward. we all know the stark reality. we are facing a devastating recession. the state budget is $1.60 billion. our national debt is over $1 trillion. people are worried about their families, their futures, their jobs and opportunities. people have told us they want a stronger economic, safer communities, and a more frugal government. i believe martin o'malley knows how to do this. when we talk about tough times and tough leadership, we know how martin o'malley will lead.

he will build on the strong legacy of his first term. the decisions he makes will be based on values. his first set of values will always come from his beloved family. today, we have with us his mother barbara. he misses his father tom on this lovely day. his wonderful wife and their four wonderful children. in that family, they grew up believing that everyone is your family, that we are all in this together. each one needs to help the other one what is your brother or sister. martin o'malley believes everyone is your brother and sister. when he goes to make those decisions, when he looks at that data -- we all know that governor o'malley is a data- driven man -- it is not about

numbers. it is not about statistics. it is about people. that is why he is so committed to moving maryland forward, to strengthen our middle-class, to build on the federal access we have like the national institutes of health and the national security agency to build an innovate if the tie -- innovate in the economy. we we also need to build -- we also need to build on our young people so they have a future. this election was about the next generation. we know that will drive so many of his decisions. his values are also rooted in its faith that he learned from his family at the church and at his high school. deep down, martin o'malley died his life by matthew 5, the beatitudes. one of the great lines is bad --

is that those who hunger after justice. he will bear -- will be able to lead us or with. i have known martin o'malley for over 25 years. in my first campaign, he was my field director. in this last campaign, he was my field director, too. it was there at one event when he was supposed to be carrying a little stool. he look across the room and said, who is that girl with [unintelligible] i said she is not a girl. she is a woman. [laughter] while i was trying to impress

the audience, he was trying to impress katie, who is now katie o'malley. in those 25 years, there have been a lot of late night chats. we talked about issues going on. it wasrtin o'malley, always about people. it will always be about people. not only moving maryland forward, but putting people first as we move maryland forward. he will bring dignity, vitality, and vision to the state house. he will lead us during dark times and during good times. i think he will agree that as we look ahead, martin o'malley will always stand up for the little man or the little woman. that is why we want to be able to stand up for him today.

in closing, i would like to pose quote emerson. to a nation's strength is about its leadership. this is what'semer -- what emerson said. "only men and women make a people great and strong. men and women who, for truth and our's sake, stand fast and suffer along. brave men who work while others sleep. brave men who dare while others lie. they are the ones who built a nation and left them to the sky." let's stand up and let our voices to welcome martin o'malley, our