and if that's not bad enough, mexico just announced they want to sue american gun companies. their drugs and violence are flowing across the border into our country, but they're suing us? if anything, we should be suing them. but it's not just attacks from abroad. here at home they're worming their way into our kids' classrooms, teaching that guns are evil, hunting is cruel, and the freedoms and traditions we cherish the most are wrong or outdated or to blame for all the world's problems. and you know who is funding and, billionaire puppeteers, like a millionaire michael bloomberg and george soros. we know they're not going away, and neither is there monday. there's a lot going on, and we do not have much time. i will say it without apology.

we need your help. we need more members and more resources. here is why. president obama already launched his reelection effort. they are saying he could be the first presidential candidate in history to spend more than $1 billion. we are not talking about a $1 billion race. we're talking about a $1 billion candidate. what do you lose a president obama wins? you tell me. what if he appoints one more anti-done justice to the supreme court, and we go from one-vote victories to one-vote defeats for generations to come? what does that cost? rain for the help of five supreme court justices is not the strategy you want to state your freedom on. once it is lost, it can almost be impossible to reclaim. as people are killed a lot --

around the world, for the film's many americans take for granted, which brings us -- for freedom's many americans take for granted. that brings us to our next word -- hero. our heroes are true patriots, the u.s. armed forces, who know firsthand what true freedom costs spread [applause] -- costs. [applause] >> too often, they are marginalized, and simply forgotten. we owe it to them to defend freedom here with the same selfless devotion to duty that they bring to the job every day in deployments around the world. that is why the nra launched a new membership out of reach for every man and woman in uniform. it is called the nra, life of lieutenant-colonel oliver north has been a focal -- has been a

vocal voice. e our lawking sur enforcement professionals, and everyone in uniform who uses a gun to defend freedom gets the gratitude, recognition, and our they have earned. americans need to hear their story, so we will tell them. our heroes deserve recognition for their deeds, so we will see that they do it. future generations need to see that stepping into danger to defend fellow citizens is as patriotic as patriotic debt. that is what life of doody is all about. when we were putting it together, i wanted to talk to america's best, and that is how i had the honor of meeting adam brown. one year ago, adam and his fellow seals give us their

unvarnished feelings. after the meeting, adam brown thanked me for what the nra fights for. here is a guy who is risked everything for his country, and he is taking us for what we do. i have to tell you, it was pretty humbling. last march, adam brown and his special part -- special ops crew went into know where -- were no u.s. forces had ever attempted an assault, going after the taliban in a mountain. they launched their assault. it when high incredibly fast. -- hi incredibly fast. some of his team was pinned down in the army fire, and he put his team first. he charged the taliban position to draw fire away from his team, and fell, wounded. he had been wounded before, many

times, but when his teammates wanted to help in this time, his final words were i'm ok, i am ok. >> some believe adam said it because he knew where he was going, but most of the men who were there say it is because they knew how concerned -- he knew how concerned they were for his survival, so we try to reassure them one last time. he gave his life that they, and his actions save the lives of his team, who went on to kill every one of the terrorists they were fighting, and complete the mission. [applause] >> that kind of courage, commitment, devotion to a greater good deserves our recognition and highest respect. all americans, particularly young people need to learn

about heroes like adam brown, so we are going to tell his story, but for now, please watch this short clip. ♪ >> he was one of those guys you was appointed to something great. >> he would tell me, mom, i am said more than anybody else over here because they had trained me so well. i go in, and i come out. >> there were times i watched the news, and i was scared, or even were it. >> most of us were born with a fear born, -- fear bone, adam was not part >> it did not matter. if he had to jump out of something, he did it. >> adam always came back, through all of this challenges and injuries. >> he would stand up, shake it off, and keep on going. >> his perseverance, he never

gave up. >> he was invincible to me. he was absolutely invincible despite everything else that has happened. nothing knocked him down. nothing. ♪ >> when i heard adam brown had been killed in action, i thought about the day i first met him, when he thanked me for all the nra does, and it hit me just how much we owe him, and every american who steps into harm's way to keep america safe and free. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in honoring the memory of a navy chief adam brown by welcoming his wife kelly, and his mom and dad. thank you so much for being with us today. [applause]

[applause] >> my fellow ira members, in honor and memory of every american who has ever fought for our country, let stand in unity against the jackasses, the hypocrites, and the lyres, let's

send a clear message to obama, bloomberg, and any politician that attacks our freedom for any reason. we will not let you, the united nation, or anyone else redefine our constitution. we will not lose the birthright that defines us as americans. we will not change who we are, or what we believe. we will not back down, and by god, we will never, ever get up. thank you, and god bless this great organization. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> and now, for the report of your president of the national rifle association, ron schmeits." >> good morning, pittsburgh. let me hear you.

are you proud to be here? >> yes. >> are you proud of your nra? >> yes. >> are you proud to defend our freedom? >> yes. >> i know you are. it is our freedom that unites us, and i share your pride, and thank you for the warm welcome. to me, personally, this day means a lot. as my term as president of your nra expires on monday, i cannot help but reflect on the past two years, two wonderful years my wife and i have enjoyed. has been an incredible experience. i am often asked, when is the best part of being president of the nra? that is easy. it is youth. it is the members. it is the members across the country, from alaska, to florida, to california, to upper

new york. i am blessed to have met so many great people. men and women who shoot and haunt, raise a family, love their country, and do everything they can to preserve our values and freedoms. i have seen your commitment. i have seen your love of family, and nation, and your fight for our cause. it has been a real joy to meet so many of our members from so many parts of our country, and everywhere i have then, i have had a true and simple message -- to protect our freedom, participate in it, get out, and shoot, and to preserve the second amendment for our children and grandchildren. we must encourage them to participate in the second

amendment, to shoot and hunt, to follow in our footsteps, and fall in love, as we have, with the shooting sports. think about it. would it not be great if all of our mayors and governors were shooters? the second amendment be safer if every congressman was a hunter? then, at least, they would all know what they were talking about, and they would all know what they are voting on. that is not the case today. but, it could be the reality of tomorrow. our schools and colleges are filled today with leaders of america's future. if we care about the future of the second amendment, we must care about those kids in school. yeah, that is right.

i am talking about kids and guns. i am sure the media is going to love that. when the news media talks about kids and guns, they make celebrities out of mass killers. that is what sells their tabloid journalism, and selling is what they care about. but, we are not buying it. turning killers into celebrities is wrong. the media ought to be ashamed. what they ought to do is send a camera crew over to writing, pa.. i did. i found a very different, incredible reality about kids and guns. take a look at what our nra news crew discovered in redding, at wilson high school.

please watch. >> we definitely started at the bottom. >> would you believe that some of the coaches in the school said this is not a sport? >> in its first season, the rifle team at wilson high turned a weight room into a shooting range. they were determined to prove the coach is wrong. >> they are not giving up. there are not quitters. >> we are the only team that has these kind of rifles. the other team has precision rifles, so we started at a disadvantage. >> well over 90 percent never touched any type of firearm. >> my mother was shocked. paradigmhe captain of of lacrosse player. >> it is for everybody. some of them have talents they never realized before. >> leaders will make a difference, just like their coach, who decided to give up a war in afghanistan for an

assignment back home. >> i was looking for something meaningful and worthwhile to make a difference, and my son is the one who pushed me over the edge and said "debt, do you think you can change history in afghanistan, where these things you can influence the future?" i think the things they are learning with us are the values, you talked about loyalty, duty, respect, self-respect, honor and personal courage -- those make you self-respect yourself, and you will learn more about yourself in the sport than sport. total concentration. >> discipline, dedication, and to work earned them the sportsman of the year award. >> we may not have won matches, but we won the respect of their peers as well as our community. that was most important. >> i am happy that we were able to do so much in so little time with what we had. >> next year, we're going to

kick butt and take names. i think it is a bright future. the enthusiasm. the maturity of the students. a whole new generation of hunters. >> i see this generation as being a generation that would not stand for someone who would take that right away from them. [applause] >> these were students who have never before fired a gun and never before participated in a school sport. they are learning. teamwork, sportsmanship, self awareness. and wilson high school is learning what we all know to be true. the that shooting is important to america's future.

ladies and gentlemen, some of these young shooters are with us here today. colonel, please stand up with your team and let us welcome and congratulate you. [applause] >> colonel and a team members, thank you for being here, and good shooting. studies have shown that law- abiding young people who should have lower rates of delinquency and drug use than those who do not. it is common sense, when you think about it, lessons of

discipline, safety, and responsibility for self and others are all part of learning to shoot. those are also lessons of life and leadership. that is why wilson high schools shooting team deserves nra's full support and why we need teams in high schools all across the country. the seed must be planted in our communities today for the future leaders of america's tomorrow. leaders like the members of the pi phi delta, one of the over 50 fraternities at penn state. they have a frat house and a pledge process. they sponsored charity drives and parties, just like any other fraternity on campus. but this one is a different. it is a fraternity of diehard

hunters. the frat house is complete with a meatball and freezers of venison, deer, bear, duck. it is also the only professional and social force street fraternity in the united states. two weeks ago, the fraternity held a reunion. and there was a sit down with some of the guys who started it. please watch this video. >> bear hunt, it is a military campaign and a family reunion all wrapped up in one. >> i went to colorado. the history of the place. we feel like we are a band of brothers. >> it is like a badge of honor. >> to end up with bruises, scratches, a broken guns. >> to get battle scars. like most men, we're proud of them. and i think the fact that we keep it going year after year

after year. >> the fraternity was founded in 1922 and was the forestry club of penn state. we're the only fraternity with the meatball in the backyard. that is the way we look at it. >> it is not just about harvesting an animal. it is about human nature. >> they can turn it into a career. >> lot of the guys in the house, when we were young, we just knew that is what we wanted to do. that is what we wanted to be. i work for the pennsylvania fishing boat commission. >> it is a network of people hiring other brothers. we have had people in state, fish, and wildlife agencies all over the country. that is our main focus, bringing and introducing young people. >> but is it getting harder to recruit young kids to get involved? >> no, yes. we had a very low number brothers this year in the fraternity house. it is a struggle. it is essential to get the young people involved. we had a first-time hunter that

was 14 years old. he would go on facebook and tell all his buddies about the bear hug. that is what it is all about. >> you have to go on with these young kids. for the kid a shot the bear when he was 14, that will be a memory for him the rest of his life. that is what we're up against, because the antis have a ton of money. if you get the first-timers out there hunting and get them hooked, that is another nra supporter. >> ladies and gentlemen, these guys are doing it at penn state, and it is critical for the future of hunting in america. tpd alumni stacks the roster of conservation agencies and nonprofits across the country. they work in just about every pennsylvania resource agency. the u.s. fish and wildlife service, the national parks service, rocky mountain elk

foundation, and the national rifle association. they deserve our full support to span their fraternity to college campuses all across the nation. responsible shooting makes better kids. you know, in makes better teammates and makes better students. shooting and hunting fosters better leaders and veteran managers of natural resources. shooting makes america a better. and as "60 minutes" found out, it makes us safer, because it makes better soldiers. please watch. >> last month was the most lethal yet for american forces in afghanistan. most of the americans were killed by the deadliest weapon in the arsenal, the roadside bomb or ied, an improvised explosive device. ied's kill more than 40 american and coalition forces in october

alone, up from five two years ago. in response, the u.s. military has gone on the offensive, search and destroy missions are carried out across said vincent -- a pianist and by small army of the lead units. army volunteers are allowed to surf on the teen's because the mission is so dangerous. in world war ii and career, artillery and shrapnel killed more american troops and any other weapon. in vietnam, it was small arms fire. here in afghanistan, it is the roadside bomb that has caused more than 75% of the deaths of american and coalition forces. we were in eastern afghanistan and walking distance from the pakistan border where many of the bomb makers were trained. on this mission, the squad was working with the michigan national guard unit to clear bombs from roads in the area. it is called route clearance

patrol. their 35 of them in afghanistan. the pentagon plans on sending 13 more this winter. specialist christopher parsons has been a guardsman for three years. >> i love the pressure. it puts a lot of pressure on me and make sure i do my job correctly. >> what skills does it take to do your job. >> i am from michigan, and i loved to hunt, so that helps a lot. >> whether is hunting deer in michigan or hunting ied's in afghanistan, since goals that? >> right. one person to a list deer hunters make the best bomb hunters. he was able to find one. it was a close 10. >> 30 meters away, you're moving of what speak? >> about 10 to 15 kilometers. i started looking more and found it. >> thanks to guardsman parsons, the bomb was destroyed. >> and that is "60 minutes."

no, you heard wayne lapierre a few minutes ago says something that the media will not admit. "and in the end, good guys with guns makes america a safer and better." that is what he said a few minutes ago. so keep that. and good kids with guns on high school shooting teams or hunting fraternities or on foreign soil defending our freedom. those good kids with guns will keep america safe and free long after we're gone. that is why everywhere, as my role as your president, has taken me, i have done my best to urge nra members and gun owners to do two simple things. get out and shoots, take along a

young person. it is true that shooters and hunters make better americans, then it is also true that one way to build better leaders for the future is by taking a young person shooting and hunting. it is just that simple. when it comes to preserving our freedom, it is just that true. you know, pittsburg is a beautiful place. i had a chance to visit point state park the other day. their work -- and there, where three rivers meet, a great city was forged. not unlike our great nation, forged from its own three rivers of freedom, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. the promise of america has always been the promise of pursuit, to live free, to change our own dreams. as americans we were born with

the heart of the hunter. it is our ability to pursue our own course, to do what we well that defense and defines our liberty. our individual freedom lives in the second amendment. our freedom to keep and bear arms, and it is in the bearing of arms, law-abiding americans, that the range in a competition in the field, it is by shooting and hunting that our heritage and rights and our nation is preserved. my heart is full of gratitude for the honor of serving as the 60th president of the national rifle association. i could never be more proud of the nra than i am today. i leave this stage with a promise. i care about the future of

america, and i know you do, too. so i asked you to join me in a solemn vow. when this convention ends, i promise to do in a very simple, very important and fun thing. i am going into the field. i am taking a young person with me. we're going to shoot and hunt together. and i am asking you to join me in the same promise. take a young person shooting, and let's build a bright future for the second amendment and for america. let's preserve our heritage. let's defend our freedom. let's defend our liberty, and let's make sure that america always remains the land of the free, together, let's make it happen. let's go shooting.

god bless you, and thank you. [applause] >> and barack obama, we have a president who is more opposed to gun ownership than any in our history, and who still believes he will prevail. he is used every excuse to seek support for gun control measures. his team at the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms is harassing dealers, and he signaled the united nations said his administration may look favorably on a treaty that would weaken our second amendment. and most importantly, he is fairly drilling at the prospect of another supreme court vacancy. so that he can appoint someone who will empower liberals on the court to rewrite the constitution and the bill of rights without a second amendment.

make no mistake about it, barack obama, his minions in the justice department, his allies in the congress, and his friends in the media, would take our guns if they could, and they will if they can. it is because of you and what you do every day as the voice of a people determined to be free, that they have not and they cannot, at least not now. the question now is whether it will be as strong in five, 10, or 20 years as we are today? president ronald reagan, himself a proud nra member, once warned that freedom is always and everywhere but a generation away from distinction. with that in mind, it is up to us, not just a fight to win the

battles of today, as jim mclaurin and then those of the 1970's and 1980's, but to prepare for the next generation for battles yet to come. we could do that by recruiting young people. women, and those serving the military, to our cause and to our family. young people like my daughter, who served -- who joined the army after 9/11 and served two tours in iraq, and is now a proud nra member. you can help by getting other young people who might otherwise lose themselves in the latest video and computer games to hunt and shoot and to understand the importance of firearms and the second amendment to a free people. that is as important a part of our mission today as any. because without an army of millions who share our values and are as willing as we to fight for them, we could lose everything in the generation.

it is why the nra has lost the life of duty campaign to honor the heroes to defend it maintain our freedoms. they are ignored, marginalize, and taken for granted by politicians in the media, but not by the nra. that is why the nra spent an extraordinary amount of time working with the boy scouts, the girl scouts, 4h clubs, and kids every hour to get them involved into shooting sports and to make the members of our extended family. it is why nearly 90% of the funds raised through the more than 1000 friends of the nra dinner, sponsored every year, goes to youth education and training. it is why we are always looking for new recruits. if this succeeds, it is part of our mission succeeds, i am convinced that it will, we will continue to win. the nra of tomorrow will be able to look the politicians of the

next generation in the eye as we look those today in the eye and say, you might if you could, but we're here to warn you that you cannot. and to give you some serious career advice. do not even try. thank you very much. [applause] >> you can access our programming any time with the c- span radio iphone application. offering four radio strains of our public affairs programming commercial free but you can listen to our signature interview programs each week. it is all available around the clock wherever you are. download it free from the application store. >> president obama is headed to kentucky today, his first trip there as president. he had a private meeting today with some of the participants in the raid that killed osama bin laden in pakistan. then he will go public at fort campbell, kentucky to thank the troops coming back from

afghanistan. we will have live coverage of that beginning at 3:50 p.m. eastern. this weekend on "q&a" the thoughts of a former navy seal who is retired. he has authored 14 books. he will talk about what it is like to be in the navy seals and his work with the cia. that is sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific. >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3 coming university of nevada las vegas professor on the vegas strip of the 1940's and 1950's. an evening of conversation with descendants of those who traveled and worked the underground railroad. and an examination of the life story of ronald reagan and whether it could happen anywhere else but the golden state. get the schedule on line or have it e-mail to you by pressing the c-span alert button. >> next week, the u.s. house votes on offshore oil drilling. one bill would require the

administration to issue more drilling leases. we will have live coverage of the house debate here on c-span. meanwhile, the hill reports today that the senate will take a controversial bill next week that would in billions of dollars in tax breaks for large oil producers and increase breaks for clean energy producers. this morning on "washington journal," we talk to a house lawmaker who supports ending federal subsidies to up this conversation is about 40 minutes. on journal" continues. host code joining us now is congressmen tim bishop, a democrat from new york and recently introduced a bill called "the big oil welfare repeal act." what is it? guest: that bill would repeal one of the tax credits that the oil companies enjoy that are frankly impossible to justify it. it would repeal of the domestic manufacturing tax credit which basically allows the oil companies to reduce their income

prior to assessing their tax liability by as much as 9%. these subsidies were first put in place in the 2004 when oil was much less per gallon than than it is now. even president bush said that once oil hits $50 a barrel, it is impossible to justify the subsidies. the recently retired president of royal dutch shell said the same thing. this is something that we need to do and would save the taxpayer $1.3 billion a year. $13 billion over 10 years. the way i have been looking at it -- our constituents are paying at the pump. they should not have to pay on tax day to subsidize these profits. it was put in place to -- it is

not just for the oil companies. it was to try to incentivize domestic manufacturing and create jobs and put people to work. some of the industries that it applies to, it is certainly justified. once you are looking at profits -- the big five oil companies realized $8 billion in profits last year. they do not need any further incentive than they already have. host: do you think that the high current price of oil is due to oil company policy? guest: i think it is due to a lot of factors. the least of the factors that plays into oil prices is supply and demand. yesterday, oil dropped by $10 a

barrel. nothing happened in terms of supply and demand globally that would have resulted in a 10% reduction in the price of a barrel of oil. there are a lot of factors. there is speculation which is a huge compound right now. there are geopolitical factors. there is the value of the dollar relative to other currencies. host: what is the point of your legislation? is it to increase money to the government coffers? guest: one -- we recognize that we need to reduce our deficit and make tough decisions in order to do that. this is one of those decisions, to take away a subsidy that the american people are paying for that is impossible to justify. the other one is a fundamental fairness. if we are going to ask kids to

not go to head start or ask seniors to not pay more for nursing care, student paying more for college, then we should also be asking oil companies to do their fair share. host: is there any similarity between your bill that you introduced and the windfall profit tax of jimmy carter? guest: i do not really think so. this is a say in the industry does not need the incentives to do with they are going to do anyway, which is explore and drill for oil. host: how did you vote yesterday? guest: i voted no. first off, i think that to fast- track environmental issues is unwise. i also think -- we had a very thorough bipartisan study that

resulted, the bp oil spill. that study made a lot of recommendations. 14 months out from that oil spill, we have put in place and none of them. the issue is not about fast tracking permits. we have granted a great many permits. there were 47 shallow water drilling permit requested for the gulf of mexico. 37 of them have been granted. there have been 22 deepwater permits issued. we have to have a process that is fair, reasonable, that withstands environmental scrutiny, and it is safe. host: it was about a year ago when the gulf oil spill began. >chairman of the national

resources committee spoke yesterday on the house floor. i want to get your reaction. >> my colleagues across the aisle will say that drilling will do nothing to lower gasoline prices. the truth is, and this is the important part, it will send a strong signal to the markets that the u.s. is serious about producing its own resources and bring in more american production online. this argument has been used by energy production for decades. we can no longer delay and prevent access to our own american resources. my colleagues will propose increasing taxes on american energy production. they will also propose increasing taxes on american energy production. i have to ask. when has raising taxes lowered the price of anything? the answer to that is never, and

it will not happen with energy. guest: a couple of comments. a first off, domestic production of oil in the mid states is at an all-time high. this notion that the obama administration's policies are choking off domestic production is simply false. so, we have increased our production which has done nothing to hold down prices. this is not a supply-driven problem. at this point, in my view, the praise is being driven more by speculation and anything else. the point that a representative hastings makes it is a respect to taxes. the house passed a budget that would reduce the tax rate for the top 1%, 35% to 25%.

we are going to hold it tax receipts constant as a percentage of gdp. at about 18%. right now we are at 14.5% of gdp. if we are going to reduce the rate for higher earners, but keep it the same, someone who is not paying now will be paying. that someone are people below the top rate. if we are going to increase the tax rate for the vast majority of americans, i do not think -- first off, we should not be doing that. it is not unreasonable that we should increase the taxes for the five most profitable corporations in the world. host: democrat tim bishop is our guest.

the numbers to call in or on your screen. -- are on your screen. he is a member of congress so he can cover the gamut of congressional issues. he serves as well on the education and work force committee. the unemployment numbers just came out, and i want to get your reaction. employers added more than 200,000 jobs in april for the third straight month, the biggest hiring spree in five years. and the unemployed rate rose to 9% in part because some people presumed looking for work. the labor department said the economy added 244,000 jobs last month.

guest: well, i think this is a good news, bad news story. we continue to add a private sector jobs. this is the 14th or 15th consecutive month that we have added jobs. all very good news. the fact remains. we continue to have a chronic unemployment problem. the problem of the long-term unemployed is more pronounced than it has been in quite some time. we have a long, long way to go and a lot of work to do. i think we should be encouraged that the private sector and employers continue to add to their work forces. we are now four months into the republican majority in the house of representatives and they have not offered a single bill yet

that would stimulate job growth. i think that is the number one issue in this country and one i hope that we will turn to in a bipartisan way. we have to deal with that issue. host: the first call comes from st. petersburg. caller: i agree wholeheartedly to stop subsidizing the oil companies. i believe the congressman is motivated more by politics than a good policy. i think what we are seeing here is a bit disingenuous. why not stop more subsidies? one not stop subsidies to other corporations -- why not stop subsidies to other corporations? other subsidies, the list goes on and on. farming subsidies.

why would you continue to support other subsidies but only go after oil unless you are playing the game of politics? guest: i appreciate the question. the bill is designed to advance a public policy initiative, and that is to get the oil companies to pay their fair share. it will be folded into a larger bill that i filed yesterday which is a comprehensive assessment of the subsidies that the oil companies receive. with respect to other subsidies, i voted as a part of the affordable care act last year to reduce, if not eliminate, the subsidies that are right now paid to the private insurance companies for the medicare advantage program. that is a program that was sold to the congress by the insurance companies as a means of saving

on medicare. it turns out, they need approximately a 14% subsidy to provide the same services that medicare provides. i voted to eliminate the subsidy. i do think that the whole issue of corporate welfare is one that we need to look at and one that we need to be vigilant about. now that we are asking every other sector of our society to take tough cuts and make sacrifices, i think we have to ask the corporate sector to do the same. host: john is a democrat. caller: i am in favor of cutting tax benefits for the oil companies as well as all corporations should be cut like that. i am 77 years old and their work in construction all my life.

there was no security or anything like that. they talk about high union wages and earnings. wheat earned them. when the iron workers put out the assigned [unintelligible] at least the democrats try to do things for the people. the republican party from the time when i was a kid, 70- something years, they are a party of whiners. "no" against everything. we finally have a president who has some smarts and is a decent person. all they do to him is say no and cut him up instead of working with him. thank you so much. guest: i do think that we are

going to have to come together and set aside the differences that we have. i am very hopeful that the negotiations being led by vice president joe biden her on the issue of raising the debt limit will yield the kind of bipartisan solutions that we need in order to move forward. we must move beyond the practice of political posturing to try to score political points and put in place decisions that will move this country forward to help serve the people that we were elected to represent. there has been an lot of obstructionism particularly in the last congress. i hope we can move beyond that in this congress. host: congressmen the show, this t -- congressman bishop, this tweet coming in --

guest: yes, we should drill more. this is one of the reasons why the debate is not as well informed as it ought to be. there are 80 million acres of federal land, publicly-owned lands that are under-leased to the oil companies right now for exploration and drilling. roughly 20% of that acreage is under active development. what we are saying to the oil companies is, look, you have roughly 60 million acres of government-owned land that is available to you to explore and to drill and it is estimated there is 11 billion barrels of oil available on those lands that are under lease. have at it. go through the appropriate process. the leases were put in place so

the oil companies could explore and drill. host: the next call comes from denver on our independent line. caller: thank you for c-span. i am an independent gas producer. my company does not receive subsidies. instead, we feel -- we receive tax preferences. it encourages my partners and others to drill. it this has been in place since about world war ii or before. either i drill or i will be taxed. the money either goes to drilling or to taxes. we are looking at the small, a

domestic tax structure is a tremendous, ibm drilling more and paying more tax. the gentleman from ohio would be the worker that would support my business, a small construction company to support drilling services. it could be environmental companies that support of those services. it is not just the producer. it is the service companies, the folks who have porta potties on the site when we drill for oil. what about the small independent -- guest: my bill applies only to the big five oil companies. it does not apply to the small independent operators such as yourself and others. it only applies to the big five. i think it is impossible to take

the position that the big five continue to be the kind of public tax support that they now receive. today had profits of $77 billion -- they had profits of $77 billion in the 2010. it was a pretty good year for them. this is not about the kind of operator that you are. it is about exxon, royal dutch shell, and conocophillips. host: chris is on our republican line. you are on the air. i am outongressmean, in the long island a lot and interdistrict a lot. i can tell you that starting a business of any size in l.i. is

near impossible because of the costs associated are high. the costs are really filtered down because there are all sorts of costs, and the price at the pump, 60 cents or 70 cents of that is in texas. there are all sorts of costs of employing people, mandates, where if you are a certain size, it is like an employment tax on the employer. this is prohibitive. i think the tenor of the democrat-republican anger that you are hearing is republicans saying less government, please stop with all of the intrusions whether giving tax breaks or not, and the democrats saying "your fair share." i do not know what the fair share is.

host: all right, chris, thank you. guest: i think the observation that it is difficult to get a small business off the ground is one that we have to pay attention to and work on. in the last congress, we passed into law eight separate tax cuts for small businesses. we recognize that they are the job creators in this country. we wanted to put in place as many practices as we could to facilitate what the small businesses do. we have to continue that. i think the president's call back in january for an examination of all the regulations that the federal government has and an effort to eliminate those that no longer serve a purpose or to streamline those that are exceptionally difficult to comply with, i

think, that is a good initiative on the part of the president. i called together a gathering of the small businesses in my district so i could hear directly from them on those areas of government regulation that they found the most difficult to contend with. we are trying to assemble a process here where we will deal with the office of management and budget to see what we can do for those, to be able to deliver a benefit to our small business owners. i think all of us recognize that we have to put in place policies that do help small businesses. when we are so focused on cutting taxes for small businesses in the last congress. host: what was the tenor of your town meetings that you held over the easter recess? guest: very different from the town hall meetings that i had in

the 2009 and in 2010. they were very substantive and civil exchanges of information. i think, at least in my district, the tenor of the public discourse has improved significantly. the first district of new york is approximately the last 75 miles of long island, the 75 most eastern miles of long island. it runs from a suburban area through the rural coastal communities. suffolk county remains the largest agricultural producing county in the state of new york. host: what do you grow? guest: we grow potatoes, oracle corp. products, and vegetables. there are about -- potatoes,

horticultural products, and vegetables. we are very proud of that. the an employer rate in suffolk county is about 7%. it is higher than any of us would like to see below we are doing somewhat better than the national average. host: cleveland, rich is a democrat. caller: since the oil is ours, it is our resources, why can we pay somebody to drill? i see them on cnbc all the time saying they can produce oil at $20 a barrel. pay somebody to refine it and keep those resources here in america. guest: are you suggesting to nationalize -- if the suggestion

was to nationalize the oil industry, i do not think anyone is discussing that or would be supportive of that. yesterday on the floor of the house as we were debating the final stages of the bill, the representative from new mexico offered a motion to recommit that would specify whatever is produced as a result of these new leases would remain for domestic distribution in the united states. what we were saying is if it is oil coming from u.s. lands being drilled by a u.s. company, then they should be in the u.s. market for distribution and for refining and distribution. that motion to recommit was defeated. frankly, i do not understand the logic that the public has followed in voting against it. i do think that if oil is coming from federally-owned land, that

we have leased to private companies, it is not unreasonable for that oil to stay here so it will have an impact on the prices that americans pay at the pump. candidly, my bill does not have a chance. the speaker of the house, -- i guess it was a week or so ago saying he thought it might be time for these oil subsidies to be taken away. paul ryan saying essentially the same thing. the speaker has made it clear that this kind of legislation for will not come to the floor of the house. host: congressmen tim bishop spent 29 years at southampton college.

next call for him, we have about 15 minutes left, santa clara, california. caller: three quick facts. the fed can to the congress two days ago and asked for $3 trillion. no one is talking about that. the oil subsidies were removed in the late 1970's. i do not know how obama was able to bring this green herring up. he knew he was informed that osama bin laden was in that spot 10 months ago. i watched him for 2.5 years to deliver to the american people something that the american people do not want. host: thank you. guest: i am not sure about the

reference of the removal of the oil subsidies in the 1970's. i do not know where subsidy she is referring to. the oil companies realize subsidies or benefit from subsidies to the tune of approximately $3.5 billion a year to $4 billion a year which is a benefit to us if we are looking to bring our deficit down to manageable levels. with respect to jobs, everyone recognizes that we need to increase the pace of hiring in this country. we have added private sector jobs for the last 14 months. for the last 13 months of the bush administration, we lost

jobs, approximately 780,000 jobs. thankfully, those days are behind us and we are beginning the process of clawing our way out of a very deep hole. hopefully we can keep that going in and increase the number of jobs that we add each month. host: next call, north carolina, beverly, you are on the air. caller: good morning. i wanted to speak to the oil rig drilling. they still have the flow blowout preventer. the man in charge said all they have to do is they can prove to contain an oil spill in 17 days. that is ridiculous. as far as obama is concerned, congratulations. he blew it.

guest: all of us should be commending president obama, the cia, and and our armed forces for the work that they collectively put in to bring osama bin laden to justice. it was a long time coming and i think it is something that we should all celebrate. with respect to the block preventers, as i say, and there was a significant assessment of the environmental disaster in the gulf conducted by a bipartisan commission. they recommended several safety mechanisms that we should put in place to make offshore drilling more safe and more environmentally responsible. we have enacted none of those recommendations. i think we are flirting with another environmental disaster as long as we do not heed the

recommendations of that commission. host: was your reaction to that floater idea of taxing vehicles out by miles? guest: i served on the transportation committee, and one of the issues out there is a way of replacing the motor fuels tax. i think is something that we should look at. i am not endorsing it. i do think it is something we should look at as we try to figure out ways to generate the kind of the funds that we need to rebuild our nation's infrastructure. one of the great concerns that many of us have is we are presiding over a crumbling infrastructure. it is one of the reasons why we are struggling. we have to find ways -- the motor fuels tax, there appears to be very little tolerance to

put that in place. vehicle miles traveled is one of the mechanisms that has been suggested. i think we should look at it. i am not endorsing it. i have not studied its early enough to have an opinion on it. host: this is a tweet coming in to you -- guest: frankly, i do not think there is a downside. we have had a three releases from the reserve in each of those cases. the press have -- the price of oil has dropped significantly. when george h. w. bush released oil from the reserve after the first iraq war, the price of oil went down by 33%. when president george bush released oil in the wake of hurricane katrina, the price of oil went down 5% or 6%.

still over 700 million barrels. the legislation that i filed yesterday would authorize the president to release up to 5% of debt and to release from the reserve oil to deal with market manipulation. that is a price-driven by speculation which is what we are dealing with right now. host: john boehner said yesterday everything is on the table as far as budget cuts go, except tax cuts. instead of tax increases. guest: i think that is an unhealthy position for the speaker to take.

14.5% of gdp. if you look at the drivers of our deficit and the drivers of our swing in the clinton years to the very real deficits that we are contending with right now, the biggest driver is the collapse of tax revenue, partly from tax cuts and partly from the difficulties that the economy is experiencing. we cannot absolutely rule out tax increases. we have to be very careful and recognize that we have a very fragile recovery. we do not want to choke that off. we have to put in place a tax structure that is fair and provides us with the revenue that we need to support the programs that most people in this country want to continue to have. host: you are on with congressman tim bishop.

caller: thank you for taking my call. i was looking back at the acquisitions in the 1998 through 2001, and it seems to me the big oil companies, or as you call them the big five, and they put the standard of oil back together again. you combine that with glass- steagall, it seems like it is a party out of control. we dould not -- shouldn't something about all the speculation in the oil market? there are 50 million federal employees out there. -- 15 million men federal employees out there. -- 15 million federal employees out there. guest: i do think that we have to deal with, very aggressively,

with speculation. goldman sachs has let its investors know that the price of a barrel of oil is $26 higher as a result of the speculation that is going on. the dodd-frank bill empowers the futures trading commission to crack down on excessive speculation. i am organizing a letter among my colleagues to go to the chairman of the cftc to urge him to use that authority to intervene in the case of excessive speculation. yesterday, the price of oil went down almost $10 a barrel without any external factors at play. this is about speculation, and we need to get it under some form of control.

host: you are on the air. caller: thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. i am so concerned. and i love this country. i am african american, and i do not support barack obama. number one. there are three entities destroying our country. number one is the epa. number two is the presidential administration. the other is the democratic party. i went back and did some research in the 1700's and the 1800's. in the beginning, the republican party was started to stop slavery, to help the african americans. i was so concerned that, when

they were fighting slavery, there were so many african americans that were democrats. it made me wonder. the democratic party needs to stop playing god and respect the acknowledgement to god. guest: i am not sure where to start. let me take this one point. ernest fingered three villains in terms of the future of this country. let me talk about the democratic party. we have had four balanced budgets in this country since world war ii. we created 22 million jobs in the clinton administration. the clinton administration handed over a 10-year surplus of a $5.50 trillion. the next eight years produced the worst job creation record of any president since herbert

hoover and resulted in the trillion dollar deficits that we are looking at right now. the congressional budget office estimated the deficit for fiscal 2009 when president obama took office -- on the day he took office, a deficit of $1.30 trillion. this administration inherited an economy in free fall, two wars, and a great many other problems. the party has been working through those problems despite monolithic opposition from the republican party. we need to come together and try to solve the problems that the american people sent us here to solve and hopefully the kind of process that is going on right now led by vice president joe biden to bring some closure to the issue of raising the debt

limit to what kind of policies we need to put in place -- that is the kind of process that we need to move this country forward. host: the last call for our guest comes from massachusetts. john is a democrat. caller: apparently, common sense is not common in the mark. ever since the bush administration came in, all of the oversight has left wall street. these are multinational corporations that have no alliance to this country. it is all about money. there is supposed to be regulation. there is supposed to be epa and the fda and everything else. if they call it obamacare, we deserve it because all of these oil companies are poisoning the oceans. there is mercury in the water.

they are poisoning us, taking our taxpayer money to make bonuses. it seems like the markets are rigged because the minute obama does something, the market goes down. it seems like there is a consolidation of power. where is our money? you can find our enemies money. but where is our money? guest: i think the whole issue of regulation is one where balance is what is required. there is no question but that is the absence of regulation contributed significantly to the financial collapse that we experienced in the summer and fall of 2008. there is no question that if we allow the epa to walk off the field we would be contending with very significant environmental disruptions all over the country in terms of

clean air and clean water. the challenge is finding the right balance environmentally and in terms of regulating wall street and corporations. i think throughout our history we have sometimes fallen off that balance on either side. i think it is important that we move in the direction in seeing to that we have appropriate regulation so we do not fall victim to ththe crisis >> house speaker john brenner will nominate a catholic priest from portland, ore., as the next house chairman. he is a 60-year-old native of washington state, replacing someone who retired.

the house is back to legislative business next week with a couple of bills dealing with offshore oil and gas drilling. one would require the administration to issue more drilling leases. next week, the senate will take up the controversy a bill that would in billions of dollars in tax breaks for large oil producers and increase tax breaks for clean energy producers. >> now available, the c-span congressional directory. it is a complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress. it has contact information, district maps, and committee assignments. it has information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online at c-span.org/shop >> president obama will be at fort campbell this afternoon

meeting participants in the raid that killed osama bin laden. he will welcome back the troops that just returned from afghanistan. we will bring you coverage of that beginning at 3:50 p.m. eastern. rudy giuliani is in washington today. he will be speaking at the republican national lawyers association national policy conference. >> this weekend, the origins of government from early tribal societies to the first modern states in china and europe. in the conservative blogger discusses his transformation from liberal to adults conservative warrior. also this weekend, the role of religion leading up to the civil war. look for the complete schedule online. sign up for alerts in your in

box. >> the chairman of the house armed services committee says the helicopter that crashed during the mission in osama bin laden's compound was not due to mechanical failure. he made those remarks of the heritage foundation where he was speaking more broadly about defense spending. his comments are 40 minutes. " the chairman is back with us. we are very happy to have him with us this morning. on behalf of the heritage foundation, i welcome all of you. three years ago, we decided to focus our activities every may

on the importance of national defense and the armed forces. this is the month of memorial day and also when the defense authorization bills are front and center. we wanted americans to take the time to think more seriously about what our military forces need to secure our land, lives, and liberties. for far too long, they have had to do more with less. throughout this month, we will shine a bright light on the situation for congress and america. we do have a pact month. the calendar we do we do have a full month. with the calendar, we have all of the activities for protect american month. in addition to today, we will host events with donald

rumsfeld and others. we're issuing weekly papers on our national defense challenges. you will find the first one outside. we have posted a new protect america month page on our website. you can find all the information i have just discussed. you can also join the conversation by friending us on facebook, twitter, and keeping up with us at the website. a couple of housekeeping notes before i introduce our guest. if you like to ask questions, put them on the index cards we have passed out. then pass them to the aisles. we will ask those with any questions from the website. we will get to as many of those as we can. at the end, please stay seated

as the congressman the parts. it is my pleasure to welcome back the honorable buck mckeon from california and the chairman of the house armed services committee. i do not think anyone on capitol hill has been more on point and more cogent about the troubling state of our military forces. nor is anyone more concerned about the problems created by under-funding them and cutting vital programs. as he wrote right after the president announced his defense cuts, "there appears to have been no consideration of threats, deterrence, logistics, or capabilities -- or even the effects that such cuts would have on our three wars, troops, and our national security." he is a much-needed voice, a champion of national defense's at this critical time in our history. he knows what america needs and

what our soldiers need. it is not sacrificing security to spend for other programs. he has been speaking about this for a long time. we would like to note it powerful address he gave here last year entitled "building in robust 21st century force." he has been fighting the good fight in congress since 1992. he served as mayor in santa clarita, recognized as one of the safest in america. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming congressman buck mckeon at heritage. [applause] >> think you all for your patience.

-- thank you for your patience. we do get to vote. we take that obligation fairly seriously. it is good to see my former colleague, earnest. you are here with heritage now. move on both of your parts. thank you for what you are doing for defense and for holding this series. i do not think there is a better way to open protect american month and by offering heartfelt congratulations and gratitude to the team that eliminated osama bin laden. to fly deep into pakistani territory and successfully attack and entrenched in the on his home turf, that is not an easy thing to do. their professionalism and courage brings great credit on themselves and the united states of america. ronald reagan was a big fan of soviet jokes. in that spirit, i would like to honor him and give our british

alice a pat on the back of the same time. from what i understand, this is a true story. during the cold war, the soviets treated the black see as their private territorial waters. the british saw the world as their territorial waters. they sent a squadron of destroyers into the black sea on patrol. a russian commander partially radiant them -- radio'd them to tell them what they had been doing in the black sea. the british commander said they were doing about 20 knots. [laughter] i would like to borrow an army phrase in the view the last one up front. this is a time of enormous upheaval. for the first time since the end of the cold war, american dominance is being challenged by credible actors. whether or not we are in the time of decline is to be

determined. i agree with the wisdom of at least in some -- adlai stevenson this. if america stumbles, the world will fall. we have a choice. we can keep leading or we can start falling. leading from behind is not a practical form policy. i commend the president for his leadership on the bin laden operation. his leadership in other areas has been scarce. it is my sense that white house defense decisions are putting this great republic on the fast track for decline. the logic has been baffling to me. expand our military commitments while cutting the funding for our armed forces. that is a recipe for disaster and decline. mr. obama has been called the

post-american president. during his tenure, american exception ellison has been called into question. -- american exceptionalism has been called into question. we have flinched from positions of responsibility as the global order trumbull's -- trembles with the forces of hope and change. i use that as it exists on the tongues and in the hearts of the press. the people of the middle east are standing up in defiance of tierney. they are filled with hope that their nation can change. since our founding, america has been a beacon of light for these movements. our military, the torchbearer. the new england minutemen defied a monarch. union soldiers freed the enslaved south. gis liberated europe from the fascist tyrant and kept watch

over western european democracies while staring down the soviet empire. we are again at a time when democracy squares off against tyranny. the battleground is too familiar to us -- the middle east. with our military engaged in three different theaters of combat in this perilous region, it is monumentally important that our nation remains guarded and strong. it must be our top priority to feel the forces and hardware necessary to stave off even the most unlikely of contingencies. the arab spring has both price and. . the potential for chaos is high. the danger to our nation is real. during this unpredictable upheaval, the momentous shift in the global order, the president announced one of the largest cuts to our armed forces in history. i will get to that in a minute. let's take a look at another historical lesson. this year, we honored the 20th

anniversary of the gulf war. the contingency in the middle east few anticipated blossomed into a multi-national effort to protect the innocent population from a brutal dictator. some of this might sound familiar. at the time, saddam hussein had the fourth largest army in the world. his troops were salty veterans of an eight-year conflict with iran and equipped with the latest soviet-made weapons. saddam had promised the mother of all battles. the iraqi army was in the words of then-secretary of defense dick cheney, in the mother of all to treat -- defeats. the stunning defeat in the gulf war was not an accident. it was the result of the courage of our troops, leadership believed in a strong american role in international affairs,

and fighting forces that went into combat with the best equipment, training, and leadership in the world. consider the lesson. throughout the 1980's, our strength was built around a threat that never materialized. when trouble pop up unexpectedly, our forces were strong and well-equipped. we shipped half a million troops to the persian gulf in a matter of a few short months. that was all while keeping our gloves up in western europe. a victory was swift and absolute. i liken this to ronald reagan's famous campaign ad. a menacing there is portrayed as unpredictable -- bear is portrayed as unpredictable and dangerous. the relevant point is that the unpredictability of warfare means that our republic must be vigilant and strong. if unpredictability is a threat,

we live in dangerous times. technology has empowered individual actors to commit horrific acts of violence. we saw that on september 11. new powers like china are rising. old powers like russia are rejuvenating. old postings are no longer sufficient to protect us. new avenues of commerce and communication like space and cyberspace allowed determined adversary to bypass our defenses. the threat of nuclear and ballistic missile technology allows small regimes that were not previously a threat to our way of life to do. harm to our republic. our traditional means of defending ourselves have been tossed out the window. the ways of waging war have evolved so rapidly that there is no way to anticipate how the next major conflict will look. when making your new year's

resolutions, how many of you anticipated the government of tunisian falling or the egyptian? who predicted there would be a no-fly zone over libya? who anticipated innocent syrians gunned down in the streets? i fear that we're walking into the future blindly ignoring the lessons of the past. commander in chief obama should share my concern about staving off american decline. if he does, it is not reflected in his policies. as we prosecute three tough force in the middle east and humanitarian relief in japan, as we rely on weapons systems of long past their prime, as we learn about new threats to our life -- our daily life, president obama has announced plans to shrink our military. that could only be described as

historic. 20 major weapons systems have been cut since he took office. more are on the chopping block. we anticipate losing thousands of soldiers and marines. that one really concerns me. the navy fleet is almost half of what it was just 20 years ago. the air force is flying airplanes with an average life of 30 years. with equipment that is falling apart and the war entering its 10th year, the strain on the troops, our most pressing -- precious resource, can only be described as severe. the military is composed of men and women who willingly answered the call. there were not coerced into combat. they heard the call and answered. the average soldier is more likely to possess a high school diploma or some level of college education than their civilian counterparts. they are more likely to come from america's middle class. de- volunteered knowing that america was at war.

-- they volunteered knowing that america was a war. they have much to lose, but they're willing to risk all for family, faith, france, and their flag. -- friends, and their five plag. today, their missions have multiplied. some of our officers and men and women have deployed to iraq or afghanistan five times in the past decade. an ideal deployment cycle dictates that for every year we ask a soldier to fight in the middle east, they spend two years with their family. unfortunately, we're still trying to hold up our end of that bargain. i find it disturbing that as combat stress takes its toll on the force, the obama administration has announced plans to cut troop strength in

numbers that might be counted in brigades. i supported president obama's surging to afghanistan. i continue to support his strategies. i refuse to vote for any legislation that will increase the stresses on our over-task and over-deployed fighting forces. if the president expands the military missions, he must expand the funding as well. these amazing men and women deserve no less than our full support. our military is expected to faithfully discharge a number of new, demanding duties. we ask that they guard the oceans, protect our computers from viruses, aid in humanitarian relief across the globe, protect our assets in space, and deter aggression from rising powers. to ask them to accomplish these tasks with antiquated equipment, weapons left over from the cold war, while separating from their

families every other year is simply disgraceful. a young army cook noticed that a well fed soldier is a happy soldier. i believe that wisdom applies elsewhere. a well-equipped soldier who knows his family at home is taking care of is a happy soldier. i will continue to fight to ensure that our troops carry out their duties, their rucksacks are full, and their spirits are high. i will fight cuts to thin their ranks when we need them more than ever. i will fight any effort by the president to unnecessarily increase the burden on our brave men and women. my remarks are not intended to be all gloom and doom. there is a way forward here. is this a way to be responsible stewards of the taxpayer's dollar without calling out the force. cutting military options

wholesale is irresponsible and dangerous. let's be honest. in a $530 billion defense budget, there has to be room for savings. the pentagon is going to need to do some house cleaning. that is just the physical reality we are facing. any savings identified by the defense department must go back into defense, not to help care, not to social security, not to cowboy poetry. that is a real one, by the way. and not to any of the pet products -- projects that the obama administration deans are higher priority than our security. i want to thank the heritage foundation for leading the way on this. you provide a valuable and credible voice to a debate that requires seasoned, strategic thinking. this is the heart of our approach to this year's national defense authorization act. to avoid the hazards of the

president's plan to cut $400 billion from defense over the next decade, we are crafting a smart piece of legislation that focuses on spending taxpayer money wisely without sacrificing military capabilities. i will give you a few examples. the first is an issue near and dear to the heritage foundation's heart -- ballistic missile defense. missile defense is an important part of homeland defense. we must get it right. that means spending our dollars wisely. the president's budget request calls for $800 million over the next few years to fund a joint american-european missile defense program that has had a poor record of performance and will never be deployed. in stand heritage has been a proponent of this joint effort, but the program is faulty. we need to harvest the benefits and savings we can and direct the scarce resources to more

urgent priorities, including the ground-based defense deployed in alaska and hawaii. the only defense we have to defend our homeland against long-range missile attacks. the defense department has plans to temporarily stop the production lines of the bradley fighting vehicle and abrams tank. the defense industry cannot be turned on and off like a light switch. shutting down production and then restarted it added later date costs more than just keeping the lines open. this is a no-brainer. the ground forces are heavily deployed in iraq and afghanistan. the threat of ied's is very real. the increasing cost to decrease our fleet of fighting vehicles is ridiculous. we want to spare the pentagon expensive startup and shutdown costs. we want to keep a robust

wilberforce working and provide our troops with modernized armored fighting vehicles. there's a great story from world war ii about what our acquisition strategy should be. the general was approached about a vehicle the army was thinking about buying. the aide said it was dirty and fast. the general asked questions and then said do it. -- the aide said that it was sturdy and fast. the general asked questions and then said duke. the vehicle was the jeep. the army built more than 640,000 of them. we still see them around. we have the next generation, coming up. i am proud of how the air force and by committee are approaching the development. the new bomber will replace both the b-1 and b-2. it can be procured in sufficient numbers to meet our strategic needs. it focuses on the integration

instead of invention of new technologies. most of this is classified. i can tell you that we're building a sturdy, capable platform that will do one thing very well. it will penetrate enemy air defenses to deliver a daily full payload. we will continue to upgrade the bomber to fit new missions and strategic needs. those upgrades will happen over time to help alleviate cost to the taxpayer. finally, there is the general electric engine for the strike fighter. i do not want to bore you with the details of into an acquisition strategy for this generation fighter jets. here is the bird's eye view. we're building up words of 2000 joint strike fighters. the engine costs eat up almost one/quarter of the costs. to help soften the costs, the pentagon originally planned to have two engines built by a team that were constantly compete for

new production and sustained contracts. history has demonstrated these competitions enhance performance and reduce costs. with our future air superior ride the -- superiority depending on this, it struck me as smart planning. the pentagon recently decided that a second engine is wasteful and canceled the program. the original engine has already overrun on cost. the ge engine is a% complete and performing well. it finished, it could drive down the price tag by billions of dollars. that is significant. i am curious how projecting a monopoly for a program that will span decades and cost $400 billion is in the best interest of the taxpayer. it sounds like the classic penney wise, pound foolish purchasing strategy that has hounded the pentagon for years.

ge and rolls royce are aware of the current stresses. instead of being part of the problem, they have decided to be part of the solution. instead of lobbying for the final 20% needed to finish the engine, ge has committed to funding the engine for fiscal year 2012 on their own dime. i will accept and support their approach. they believe in their engine. they believe in competition. thanks to their willingness to compromise, we will break up a monopoly. we will potentially harvest billions in savings while building a more capable and robust fighter jet -- all at zero cost to the taxpayer. that kind of reform should be rewarded and applauded at every opportunity. i thank ge and rolls-royce for

coming to us with a smart solution to a tough problem. with the future of u.s. security on the line, we can adopt president obama's plan to cut $400 billion from the defense budget. this will not dent the deficit. it does not address the real money issue of entitlements. it will help the pentagon -- hit the pentagon and troops hard. they will lose capabilities. secretary gates recently said after trimming $78 billion from earlier this year that we were approaching the minimum level of defense spending needed to maintain our global commitments. we are projected to fall below that figure by an average of 7% each year for the next 12 years. that is the obama plan. what we can roll up our sleeves and get serious about oversight and this form -- reform. we can work the defense with a scalpel instead of a storm. we can secure the blessings of

liberty for our children and grandchildren. if america does stumble, if we do lose our way, historians will ask for generations in america was pushed or if america fell. my challenge to you is to ensure the question never has to be asked or answered. the heritage foundation has sounded the trumpet on smarter defense spending. continue your good work. continue to offer your advice to congress. let's work together to ensure that president reagan's shining city on the hope burns brightly for future generations. 20 years ago, our nation liberated kuwait and won the cold war. america appeared invulnerable and tyrants crumbled. the decade's worth of peace followed. let's stand up and be strong

again. let's meet the security challenges of the 21st century with determination and resolve that has littered our history with the remains of despots and dictators. let's stand tall to preserve our prosperity and pledged to the world that america will always lead so that america will always be free. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. the audience has been diligent. i have a number of questions. how much do we need to adequately fund our troops in fiscal year 2012 and beyond? >> i do not have a specific number. i do know that we have cut 20

programs in the last couple of years. some of those maybe should have been cut. i would have hoped that the expeditionary fighting vehicle that we have been working on for 20 years -- why did we wake up one morning and decide we cannot afford it? i would hope we do a better job of planning ahead and find -- buying to fit our needs rather than working on something for years knowing we cannot afford it. we had the navy in a hearing recently. they were talking about the future ballistic missile submarine that has 24 missile tubes. there were happy to report that the accounting four of those tubes -- by cutting four of those tubes, they could save $1 billion. the cost of the submarine is still not affordable and will not be in our budget. my solution was to see if we

could cut 24. what if we just cut out a submarine? utw far do we need to come u without knowing what our real needs are? the budget has been driven by financial needs rather than by our defense needs. we need to find out what the mission of the military is and what we really expect them to do. then we need to fund it accordingly. >> the second question -- there are two questions from inside the air force. the second one was on the second fighter engine that you have already answered. the first is, do you have details on the $400 billion in cuts that president obama wants to make? how much of that will be pentagon money? >> all i know is that the president gave a speech and said we would cut $400 billion out of

defense. the secretary a year ago and asked the services to cut $100 billion. he asked them to find efficiencies the total of 2 $100 billion. he said they would be able to keep it for things they needed more. they later came back and said that they would be able to keep $70 billion of it and have to use $28 billion for must needs that you have. when he presented it to us, we added that there was another $70 billion to cut. that would result in cutting the army and marines by 700,000 people. he went on to say that this was as far as we could go and that any future cuts would have to come out of manpower. the president then gave a speech about cutting another $400

billion. the downward trend of cutting -- that is a great question. why do you come up with a number without first same with the need is? what do we expect our military to do? what are our defense needs? that is why i say it is driven by the dollar instead of the ultimate need of what our defense should be performing. >> the next question is on the same thing. it is stated in different way. a number of people are arguing that now that the war in iraq is winding down there is the expectation is could -- it could wind down in afghanistan as well with a timetable for withdrawal. people are already talking about another peace dividend. it is the same one we had in the 1990's after the cold war. there are some time references to after the vietnam war. after a war, it is time to have

a peace dividend to spend on social issues and things like that. i think i know what you will say, but can you address that argument? >> no one wants peace more than i do. if given a choice, we would all want a nice, peaceful work. at the end of world war ii, we sent the troops home after the war to end all wars. a few years later, we had korea and lost a lot of people needlessly because they were not prepared and did not have adequate training, leadership, and equipment. we lost a lot of people needlessly. then we had vietnam. after each of these, we run our military down. president obama made a very courageous decision the other night to go after osama bin laden. i am sure in his mind, he probably remembered when carter sent our forces out to rescue some hostages and the

helicopters could not fly. we have, a long way from then. we have also started calling out the military. after seen it havhappen every war and conflict. this is the first time we're cutting during the war. what was the question? >> the peace dividend. >> that is a wonderful thing. i think everybody understands that if you are not fighting a ,ar and a roin iraq and afghanin there should be money saved. no disagreement there. people should also understand that after a decade of fighting in iraq and afghanistan, we have queued up -- chewed up a lot of equipment. there is no money in the budget for a reset. we have looked at money to get them back to where the equipment is capable to move forward again.

i think that needs to be considered. then we can talk about a peace dividend. i do not think we should -- i carry around a little thing in my pocket that i think is important to know. when i came to congress, we had 76 army brigades. we now have 45. that is just less than 20 years ago. we had 82 fighter squadrons. we now have 39. we had 360 navy ships. we now have 154. the ships we have now are better than the ones we had 20 years ago, a lot of them are the same ones. the numbers do count. we have 19 ships right now in japan. 18,000 people are helping in the effort over there. it is important. but that is part of the military mission and should be figured into the defense budget.

>> it closer to the microphone so they can hear the question. >> you mentioned the failed mission under president carter. we have a question here about whether there is any evidence that you know of that the helicopter accident and read in pakistan -- raid in pakistan had anything to do with overuse or lack of training. >> no, they trained very well for the mission. the equipment they have now is very good. i do not think this is classified. when the helicopter came in, the wall surrounding the compound was very high. it was pitch black. he was totally dark. it would have the best chance of success because we own the night. the back of the helicopter hit the wall. the second problem was that

there was about a 15 degree difference in what they planned. they had the helicopter fully loaded. the difference in temperature -- the lift of the helicopter depends on the temperature. when they came in to hover, they hover.not hold the cove that is what happened. it was not a mechanical failure. it was not a problem by the pilot. it was just zero little miscalculation on the temperature where we could not know all of the details. -- it was just all little miscalculation on the temperature where we could not know all the details. >> which one of the 2012 presidential front runners has defense spending as a priority? in the republican party, i assume. >> that would be trump --

[laughter] i saw a poll the other day that said that romney had 51% and trump had 49%. we have so many out there. i have not even spoken to all of them. there may be more coming tomorrow. i did speak to mitt romney. he was exactly in line with the things i have said here today. i know he feels strongly about rebuilding america and is very strong on not apologizing to the world for america. >> the last question, and during the debate on the new trees, a number of people were arguing we needed to modernize our nuclear forces as part of the treaty. that was pretty much the ingoing

consensus for a lot of people who voted for it. tell us what you can about the progress in terms of whether congress will provide funding for modernization after the new start treaty. >> i think senator kyl has been the lead voice on that in the senate and has been fighting for the modernization. in the house, our subcommittee chairman of strategic forces is mike turner. he leaves the effort for us on missile defense. he does an outstanding job. -- he leaves the effort for us on missile defense. he does an outstanding job. he has done the market to build up the missile defense. you should have him come in and talk. he is great. he could give you everything on missile defense. he is our expert. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i know you have to get back to more meetings and voting. thank you very much for coming.

[applause] >> thank you very much for coming today. i believe we have to use the room for something else. thank you for coming today. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] .

>> president obama and vice president joe biden are in ft. campbell, kentucky, at this hour. this is the president's first visit to kentucky as president. they're at ft. campbell to welcome hope troops from afghanistan. he is also meeting today privately with members of the special operations team that participated in the navy seals' osama bin laden mission. the president is expected to address the members of the troops returning from afghanistan, members of the airborne, and they have gathered at ft. campbell. the expected time on that is 3:55 eastern but it looks like it could be a bit earlier. we will take you live to ft. campbell, kentucky, when the president gets under way. earlier today the president was in indianapolis touring the allison transmission plant, transmission company that works with hybrid vehicles and energy efficient vehicles. the president made comments during that visit earlier today.

[applause] thank you, everybody. good to see you. thank you very much. thank you, everybody. please have a seat. thank you. it is good to be back in indianapolis. hello, hoosiers. sorry about the pacers. i'm sorry, mr. mayor. give the mayor a big round of applause. he's doing a great job.

along with the mayor, we've got secretary of transportation ray lahood in the house. ray? [applause] we've gone your own member of congress, andre carson here. and i want to thank larry and everybody here at allison for their extraordinary hospitality. it's wonderful to be here. i just had a chance to see the my brid systems that -- hybrid systems you're working on here at the plant. i love seeing high-tech machinery like this. i stand there and people explain it to me and i pretend like i know what they're talking about. but it looked outstanding. what you're doing here at allison transmission is really important.

today there are more than 3,800 buses using hydrid technology all over the world. bus that's have already saved 15 million gallons of fuel. and pretty soon you will be expanding this technology to trucks as well. that means we will have even more vehicles who are using even less oil. that means mobe jobs here at allison. last month you added 50 jobs at this company and i hear you're planning to add another 200 over the next two years. so we are very proud of that. we are very happy with that. [applause] this is where the american economy is rebuilding, where we are regaining our footing. we just went through one of the worst recessions in our history,

worst in our lifetimes, the worst since the great depression. but this economic momentum that's taking place here at allison is taking place all across the country. today we found out we added another 268,000 private sector jobs in april. [applause] so that means over the last 14 months, just in a little bit over a year, we've added more than 2 million jobs in the private sector. now, we made the progress at a time when our economy has been facing serious head winds i don't need to tell you about that. we have gas price that's have been eating away at your paychecks and that is a head bend we've got to confront. you've got the earthquake in japan that has had an effect on

manufacturing here. so there are always going to be some ups and downs like he's as we come out of a recession and there will undoubtedly be some more challenges ahead. but the fact is that we are still making progress, and that proves how resilient the american economy is and how resilient the american worker is and that we can take a hit and we can keep on going forward. that's exactly what we're doing. now, despite the good work that's being done in allison, obviously here in indiana and all across the country, there's still some folks who are struggling and a lot of people i thring, where are those new jobs going to come from that pay well , have good benefits k. support a family? how do we reduce our dependence on oil so wire not hostage to high gas prices all the time?

the reason i'm here today is because the answers to these questions are right here at allison, right here in these vehicles, right here in these transmissions. this is where the job of the future is at. we're going to have a lot of jobs in the service sector because we're a mature economy but america's economy is always going to rely on outstanding manufacturing, where we make stuff. we're not just buying stuff overseas but making stuff here and selling it to somebody else. and that's what allison's all about. this is also where a clean energy economy is being built. this is the kind of company that will make sure that america remains the most prosperous

nation in the world. other countries understand this. we're in a competition all around the world and other kents, germany, china, south korea, they know that clean energy technology is what is going to help spur job creation and economic growth from years to come and that's why we've got to make sure we win that competition. i don't want the new breakthrough technologies and new manufacturing taking place in china and india. i want those jobs right here in indiana, right here in the united states of america with american workers, american know-how, american engine uety. and that's also we're going to get gas prices under control. i confess, it's been a while since i filled up. secret service doesn't let me, you know, fill up my motorcade.

but it hasn't been that long ago since i watched those numbers scroll up. and i know how tough it is. /f you have to drive to work and you may not be able to afford buying a new car. so you have that old beater that gets you 8 miles a gallon, it's tough. it is a huge strain on a lot of people. but if we can transition new technology, that's what's going to make a difference over the long interpret. that's how we're going to meet the goal i spent of reducing the amount of oil reimport by one third by the middle of the next decade. we can hit that target. we can hit that target. in the short term we need to do everything we can to encourage safe and responsible oil production here at home. in fact last year, american oil

production reached its highest level since 2003. so i want everybody to remember that, if people ask because sometimes i get letters from constituents who say why aren't we just drilling more here? we're actually producing more oil here than ever. but the challenge is we've only got 2% to 3% of the world's oil reserves and we use 25% of the world's oil. so we can't just drill our way out of the problem. if we're serious about meeting our energy challenge, we're going to have to do more than drill, and that's why the real solution is clean, homegrown energy. the real solution is advanced biofuels and there's a lot of good biofuel work being done here in indiana. it means that we've got to have natural gas vehicles. we have a lot of natural gas that can be produced here in the united states of america. it means making our cars and

trucks more energy efficient because if we use less oil, that reduces demand, that brings the price down and you will see the impact at the pump. that's what's going to make a difference and that's why what you're doing here is so important. now, it turns out even though they don't let me go to the gas pump, i do have a lot of cars under my jurisdiction. as president. the federal fleet is enormous. and we already doubled the number of hybrids in the federal fleet. i'm directing every agency to make sure that 100% of our cars and trucks are fuel efficient or clean energy vehicles by 2015. so you're going have a customer, hopefully in the united states government, because we want to make sure that we are making clean, fuel-efficient cars and

trucks. we have also launched private sector partnerships with companies like fedex, u.p.s., utility companies. a lot of these company that's have trucks and delivery trucks that are used in urban areas where a lot of stops and starts are perfect for the technology that you're building. so we're forming partnerships to make sure you have got more customers and to spur the production of fuel-efficient cars and trucks across the country, we have reached an historic agreement with every major auto company. thanks to the leadership of ray lahood, they are ramping up the fuel efficiency of their cars and trucks and that will not only save 1.8 billion bars of oil t. will save you, the average driver b. $3,000 at the pump as cars increasingly get better gas mileage. this july we're finalizing new fuel efficiency stapards for

heavy duty trucks for the first time in our history. and that could actually end up saving us -- we were talking about this the other day t. coned up saving us something like 500 billions of barrels of oil. huge amounts of oil because heavy trucks use so much. we're also promoting clean energy technologies and other waste from investing in hybrid systems, like the one allison is developing for commercial trucks , to championing vehicles that run on clean burning natural gas , to spurring the creation of next generation batteries for electric vehicles. a few years ago america only produced 2% of the world's advanced batteries. those are the batteries going into the new electric cars. because of the investments we made the first two year i was in office, we're on track to produce 40% of the advanced batteries. that is going to be a huge boon

to american manufacturing. that's an example of a big, new industry that we can create right here in the united states of america. to make sure we're not only investing in clean energy technologies but encouraging people to use these new technologies, i proposed a $7,500 tax rebate for electric vehicles. so if you do have that old beater you want to get rid of and you decide you are going to buy a new car, choosing an electric car, you can actually get a huge rebate that will save you money on the gas pump and also on your tax returns that.s0 will make a big difference. we should award communities making it difficult to use electric vehicles and leading the way when it comes to clean energy. that's the kind of leadership indianapolis is showing. you're installing natural gas

pumps around town and taking storpes to promote clean energy. i hope cities and towns across this country follow in your example. of course, these investments in clean energy go cost some money. we're going to need to find a way to pay for them. part of the cost can be made up by putting an end to the unwarranted subsidies that we are giving oil companies right now through the tax codes. i want everybody to listen here. oil companies over the last five years threw recession, through ups and downs, but the top five oil companies, their profits have ranged from between $75 billion and $125 billion. . that's with a "b." not million, billion.

and yet they still have a tax loophole that is costing taxpayers $4 billion every year. if you're already paying them at the pump, we don't need to pay them through the tax code. we do not need to do it. especially at a time when we're scouring every part of the budget to try to figure out how we bring down our deficit and our debt. if we're honest with ourselves we'll admit even if we end these taxpayer subsidies, we'll still have more work to do in getting control of our deficit and debt. i know that in this difficult, fiscal climate it may be tempting for some foam-to-say let's stop investing in hybrid technology. let's stop investing in basic research. let's stop investing in the infrastructure that's needed to make sure that we can transtoigs new forms of transportation.

that's the temptation. but i profoundly disagree with that approach. if we're going to win the future. we have to cut out the things we don't need but still make investments in the things that we do. that's what you do at home. if somebody in your family loses a job, if your houses get cut, what do you do? you may stop going out to a restaurant to eat. you may decide you're going to put off buying that new furn which are or taking that vacation, but you're not going to stop fixing the boiler or the hole in the roof. you're not going to stop making sure you have enough money to help your kids go to school. those are the things -- that's like your seed corn. you don't eat that. the same is true for the federal government. we can't cut investments in clean energy that will help us out innovate and out compete and

help america win the future. we're not going to stop making investments that allow plants like this one to find the new ways of doing business in the future. i want to mack sure the federal government is right here with you as a partner with you as you move forward. we can do it and still get control of our deficit if we do it smart. for nearly 100 years this company has made its way forward through ups and through downs, making advance that's have transformed everything from buses to planes to tanks. jim allison actually helped start the indy 500 back in 1909, not just to race cars but to test new race car components. and that same spirit of innovation and ingenuity is what i have seen in the workers i talk to today.

that's why i'm so confident in this country. that's why i'm so optimistic about our economic future. because i believe in all of you. i believe in the american worker and i believe in american business. for all of the challenges we face, this country is still home to the most entrepreneurial, most industrious, most determined people on the planet. there's nothing we cannot do so long as we put our mind to it. so long as queep our eyes on the prize. and i'm going to keep on working with you to make sure that we do that so long as i am privileged of being president of the united states. thank you, everybody. god bless you. god bless the united states of america.

>> president obama earlier today at the allison transmission plant in indianapolis. he sensed moved on to kentucky. he's there now. first visit to kentucky as president. he's there specifically at ft. campbell, kentucky, to welcome back troops from afghanistan. he's also meeting today with some of the participants in that raid that killed osama bin laden in pakistan. we expect to hear from the president within the half hour at about 3:50 eastern. whenever it starts, we will have it live for you here on c-span. also this afternoon, former new york city mayor rudy giuliani in washington speaking at the republican national lawyers association. it's their national policy conference. you can see live coverage of that coming up at 4:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span2. while we wait do hear from the president at ft. campbell, we will take you to a conversation with blogger andrew brightbard

from this morning's "washington journal." >> now joining us from our new york studio is andrew brightbart. indignation." andrew bre itrt, what makes you indignant? guest: the book is built around this construct which i described as the national alliance of th mainstream media democratic party and liberal interest grou. why did i come up with deconstruct? cut used to be a default liberal. what i learned in my prep school and american studies at tulane university, whever learned from abc, cbs, and nbc, is that liberalism is a righteous and

anybody that disagrees with it is somehow against children, the environment, and all things good. i happened upon conservatm during a time when i was driving scripts around hollywood. when i discovered a.m. radio, i started to hear a perspective that i never heard before. it made a lot more sense to me. i am indignant about the fact that the mainstream media pretends to be objective when in fact it is used by the last american people. i am a tea party guy and i am rightes about their causes. the idea that the mainstream media complex would frame the tea party from the get go as a potentially violent threat and a

racist threat shows how frightened the democratic media complex is of its own citizenry of the american people. host: i want to read a little bit from your book and to get you expound on it if you would. this is on page 96.

guest: is the cliche -- it is getting to become a cliche the cliche that i give in my speeches or talks is politics is down stream from culture. movement and mindset, that if they believe every election cycle they are going to turn around this

nation when they have lost control of academia, hollywood, and the cultural reign, and that they think john boehner and eric kanter can write the the wrong after a generation or two after having no place within the humanities department, not controlling any aspect of the levers in hollywood, it is a huge d.c. problem. i plan conservatism more than others that have every right in a free country to make movies that reflect their world view. host: who are cheery and arlene breatbart? guest: they are my parents. they are still alive. they were vy middle-class compar to the majority of people that i grew up and los

angeles. a lot of times i am accused of being a rich kid because i went to a private school. my dad ran a restaurant and make sure i went to the best private school. i am glad that he made a lot of sacrifices in order for me to do that. -strain in high schooand college -- they were not hitting me over the head with conservatism. they acted out their hard- working, not taking anything from the government -- they lived their conservatism but they did not preach it. i now realize that my dad has always been a republican, my mom has always voted as a republican. i thank them because i think they allowed me to stray in high

school and politics whi made me the warrior who i am today. i think the apostate from left to right made me a pretty affecting cultural warrior out there. host: andrew breitbart, you write in your book that you spend a lot of time trying to create a secret network of conservatives in hollywood. guest: well, yeah. ever since my book cannot and started going on tv and radio and started to talk about the perilsf underground conservatism in hollywood, people started coming up to me in public -- actors, writers, directors, punk rockers, people that you would not imagine in 10years, gaffers, key grips

-- they would come up to me and tell me on the shoulder and say i am on the team. they would whisper in my ear, onh, don't tell anyone i'm the team." there is a consistency within the cultural rom, wherever conservatism exist within academia and the humanities department, which in hollywood, there is a whisper that you are conservative. they do not want to be known publicly because there is something akin to a plausible deniability -- blacklisting. people lose their jobs who believed that conservatives equals fascist. conservative equals racist.

why would people believe that? why would they choose a conservative over someone who is like-minded? i want to connect this people so that they ha the strength in nuers. it is happening. over the last eight yearsi am telling you, he would not believe the people who are libertarian-minded -- they are just trying to figure out a way that they can emerge. i think the best way to emerge is to put their money where their mouth is and actually create and engaged in a free market. yes, the left behavior's intuitively with those that disagree with tm. anyone who denies that is ignoring reality. conservatives have to fight the fight.

the have to fight this cultural war in the trenches. they have to look at people who are behind enemy lines as people that they need to support. what is your connection to orson bean and the bay city rollers? >> the baked city rollers performed at my first party. i became tea party member and i went to my fst tea party with orson bean who is my father-in-law. that is the greatest luck get of my life that i did this beautiful woman and her father is orson bean, the great raconteur. he went from the left where he was blacklisted back in the 1950's to the right. he helped me very much during my transformation at the first tea party we went to, as i was walking proof the santa ana said

it center, loong at police officers who were there to keep the peace at the moment that janet napolitano said that this group of people may be potentially violent, the police officers were giving me a thumbs up. as i was walking through the crowd, i heard the bay city rollers. afterwards backstays, i met ian mitchell, a newly minted american citizen. he is the mt patriotic guy and a world and he does t want the country to turn into the country that he left. does not want this country to move toward european socialism. host: we will start with a call from last vegas, a democrat, you are on with andrew breitbart. caller: good morning.

i am astounded at the mindset. the hatchet job you has done, i don't think there is any reason to take a position that you are a warrior for the right. it comes out of the same playbook as fox news. the store, like, continue to live. -- distort, l, continue to lie. don't distort the facts. that's all i have to say. >guest: i would ask him to do the same peri. i believe he has been given the talking points from the left. the truth behind the sharad

thing is that out of outer space a video st that was edited. that is not true. it was a long excerpt that was two + minutes long. at the end of that video was the retentive arc where she says this year realizes it's not it's not about black versus white, is about rich versus poor. who defended me on this? chris matthews of all people confronted howard dean and joan walsh on the air instead of this is a hack job, why did andrew breitbart keep in the park where he said she had a change o mind. in my 1400-word piece, it says eventually her basic humanity informs her to help a white farmer. how did this thing gets so distorted? the first day, sharad blamed the undoubled -- naacp are predicament and the president

fired her. she said she helped the white farmer. she said she had a change of opinion. the naacp excoriate did the audience for its affirmation of her telling the story about how she sent the farmer to one of his own and how she patronize him initially. that was the point in which was the previous attack by the naacp, attacking the tea party as racist. my argument one week before was that if you're going to attack the tea party based upon negligible evidence, those that live in glass houses should not throw stones. the naacp apologized for the audience reaction which was in the context of the video. the problem that happened and i felt i hit the target there were

attempts to-would grant the tea party. everything went awry whenlen beck went on television and said i need to apologize. he claimed that he did not do this story because he saw a greater context he thought there is a context missing and he refrained from doing it. in fact, that morning, glen beck took the two plus minute video and cut it into a series of little clips and mercilessly attacked surely share rod. the white house said there were fearful that glen beck would buy this on their tv show. glen beck took away the context of where she said it is not about black versus white, is abt rich versus poor. he took out the context of the naacp's constant bashing of the tea party and he made about surely sharad. that is what happened then i went to him after that and after he said i apologize.

i said let me on your show. i wanted to explain myself. he refused. i was thrown to the walls and the mainstream media wanted to take me out based upon me having been successful in the acorn in getting them defunded. host: his book debuted at number 13 on the n.y. times best seller. arizona, you are next. caller: what does this gentleman think about the debt crisis. i did not read his book but i imagine if he is with the tea party, he thinks like me that i think the country is like a car. if you don't make the payments on that car, the repo man comes

and gets it. you claim the car engines the oil but we are not working, we will not be able to make our payment on that car, we will lose it. i think that is what the country is like. we have to go to work to keep it. guest: i agree with them. when i went to my first tea party, i don't have a paul revere outfit. i don't have a short for my lauber a doodle that is an american flag. i don't talk about the constitution as articulate as other people. i don'talk about fiscal responsibility. my role in the tea party from day one was to defend tea party from the predictable attacks from the democrati media complex which tried to frame the tea party as racist, homophobic, fascist, potentially violent like timothy mcveigh.

it was absolutely offensive to me. i went out to every single tea party to say to be where the mainstream media. they will reflexively puts you in a position where you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent and they will not give you cover. that will not allow for you to explain yourself. one of the big things that i did on behalf of the a party was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the biggest accusation made against the tea party tha congressman carson said the day beforec dayare was passed, -- the day before obamacare was passed. he said they were walking out of the cannon house building and they were walking down the steps and they were surrounded by a mob of 400 people. they said 15 people call them the 'n'word.

they said they thoug rocks would be thrown at them and the police had to usher them out of this dangerous situation. i offered $100,000 of that crowd of 400 people for any evidence of a video or audio evidence that the n-word was said ones. it shut them up becse nobody thought somebody was going to challenge them. then the associated press said that andrew breitbart has put out this $100,000 reward but the absence of video does not mean it does not happen which forced me to find four videos of them walking down the steps unobstructed, nothing like what congressman carson's audio accusations made it out tbe. i have been fighting the tea party battle against the mainstream media who want to frame them in the worst possible light.

that is why i find myself in peril with sharad and in the middle of the mass. it has been a continuing. if the left is going to accuse people of the french right of being birthers, the last two years has been an uelievable moment of the democratic party, the left, being racists where every disagreement on fiscal policy or environmental policy is delineated to charge that the people who disagree with it or obama care are racists. it is outrageous. that's what i dedicated my book to clarence thomas. that black man's apparel as a result of the democrat media colex and the media complex tackled him mercilessly. my eyes opened up when day -- when i saw how they treated this black man different way than a

black man whoas liberal. this is my battle and i am not afraid of the race card anymore. it will become so worn out it will actually work when there is actual racism. ho: we started this program by talking about the obama administration's handling of the as some of been laid in killing last sunday. al qaeda has said that they will release osama bin laden audio. they had a tape made about a week before he was killed an they will be releasing that shortly. how'd you think the obama ministration has handled this killing of osama bin laden? guest: that is an obama grand slam. the first thing i did sunday night without calling anyone, i twisted congratulations president obama. -- i treated -- i tweeted

congratulations president obama. the idea that he would make that tough decision but if it did not work out like the j. carter foray into iran, all of those events are fraught with peril. without any challenge to it, thank you, president obama for doing the right thing. since then, i feel his political allies, his political apparatus has tried to take too much credit for that grand slam for themselves. they have behaved in a politically correct fashion. i think he should have just lighted exits as it is. as it relates to the photo, the american people want closure on this. the world wants closure on this.

a lot of muslim people were killed by osama bin laden. what he did was a blasphemy against his own religion and that is the mayor of the democratic party and barack obama would like to say. i am not worried about inciting the arab streets through appeasement. i want closure. most of the american people want closure on this. host: the next call comes from centreville, va., on our independent line. caller: i have been learning more. i was going to ask you how old you are but i realized i saw a thing on you. hollywood is not the center of the world. in growing up not too far from their, i know that california -- hollywood is not all of california. to assume this one little enclave controls how everybody

else sees things is ludicrous. i am trying to figure out -- you credit your parents for allowing you to pursue and you're fighting spirit from high school. it is critical thinking. that is what you go to college. california is the state of ronald reagan. it is the state of proposition 13. tic -- you can tell it is more conservative and you have liberal enclaves. to say that people are scared t say they are on the team, i a an independent. i am not conservative. i am more libertarian and there is a b distinction. if the conservative group was involved in social polities maybe i would be more conservative. but the liberal does not want the government in my back pocket.

guest: what is your question? caller: you are rambling all these different thoughts together and i would ask you -- host: finish up your statement. caller: if you can delineate conservative, liberal, or tea party or libertarian, i am a libertarian,loser than a conservative and it would seem to me that you should state that and state the difference and realize that california does not rule the world. host: we got your point. guest: i don't know what our primary point was. if you are a libertarian, if you are a conservative, if you are a tea party person, if you are a classical liberal and you are in hollywood and you are on a set

and you state when somebody says george bush's hitler, is not smart for you to defend george bush for the sake of your job from a libertarian standpoint, from a tea party standpot, from any standpoint. there is an overarching liberal orthodoxy in that towthat has a totalitarian tinge to it. it is not blacklist but it is a plausible deniability where individual producers often make decisions based upon their politics. they base their decisions on what type of movies they make. hollywood created an onslaught of anti-porn movies. there was not a pro-war movie that came along from hollywood. there is no way you could get that movie through the creative process and get it distributed. there's a problem in hollywood. to deny there is a problem in

hollywood is to deny that water is wet. host: on his twitter site, mr. andrew breitbart part describes itself as a righteously indignant senior fellow at the senior fellow institute of senior fellow studies. next call comes from battle creek, mich., a democrat. caller: i was wondering if you could offer an opinion on where president obama was born, maybe help out hisight wing following. we have had the short form birth certificate released and the long form birth certificate released. we also have donald trump talking about oba should release his transcripts. give us your opinion as to where the president was born. guest: i'm the guy at the tea party convention in nashville of it -- in 2010 that was

confronted and i said his line of inquiry on that was inappropriate especially for the tea party which had a lot of affirmative points oview such as let's have a return to fiscal nity, return to constitutnal values, and to raise this question, this unanswered question of this president, i thought was inappropriate. i have been attacked from the right or from a certain partf the right for being an anti- birther. for the longest time, said the democrat media complex did not vet this president and i want to know more about his biography. i found out the gore and kerry and george w. bush were all mediocre students. i have always wanted to know more about president obama's

background, his time at columbia, his time at occidental, the courses he took, some of the papers he has written. i believe that you can believe president obama when he tells you at occidental that he did not want to hang out with your typical liberal. he wants to hang out with radicals. i would like to know what is interaction from the standpoint of somebody who is pro-israel, i would like to see what is interaction was with edwards said the west both at columbia and moved to chicago at about the time barack obama did. i would like to know why the los angeles times had a video of another radical islamist >> we are heading to fort campbell kentucky next.

president obama will be speaking to the troops there. live coverage on c-span. >> ♪ [national anthem] ♪

[applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, please be seated. >> waiting for president obama at fort campbell, kentucky, the ap reports that [no audio]

>> waiting for president obama at fort campbell, ky. behind closed doors, the president was bringing his personal thanks to some of the special operations forces to storm the osama bin laden's compound. the president was meeting with some of the navy seals who carried out the operation and the elite helicopter crew who flew them end. the president is joined by vice president joe biden and should be speaking to the troops

shortly. this is the first trip to kentucky by president obama since he became president. on tuesday, he will deliver a speech about immigration reform in texas. on wednesday, the president will take part in a town hall meeting in washington and that will be carried live on cbs. president obama is soon welcoming back some of the returning troops from afghanistan. >> [cheering] >> i am kind of disappointed. in between, when the band is playing, you can hear the birds

chirping. they are much louder than you. we need to make sure he remembers where he was sacked. -- was at. when the vice president was here, a few months ago, he was talking out telling the president, be prepared, it will be pretty loud. did not disappoint the vice- president. we will give a screaming eagle and will practice this a couple of times. and then we will sing the division song. we want him to hear art division song at sea is driving over here.

the vehicle is bullet proof, but it is not soundproof. on account of three, we will give a big air assault and then we will start the band would be screaming eagles song. one, 2, 3. that is much better. go ahead. you should stand up. >> ♪ ♪

[cheering] >> we will sing your song, too. ♪

[cheering] >> i am feeling pretty good now because i was worried about getting you woke up from hearing those birds chirping. i am not a comedian because -- i do not have any jokes. he should be here and he is on his way over. do not let the vice president down because he was out there talking about you as a welcome tom the group. is there anyone here that met him when he was here? there are a few of you. all those people are on block leave. [laughter] thank you. [applause]

x waiting for president obama, here at the fort campbell, kentucky, and he will be speaking to some of the troops that have just returned home from afghanistan. the president had been speaking today to some of those involved in the operations that wound up in the death of osama bin laden. speaking with some of the navy seals and the elite helicopter crews to flew them end. the president is making his way over to the auditorium where the troops are gathered to hear from him. he is accompanied by vice president joe biden as well. the president appearing here today, his first appearance in the state of kentucky as president. al qaeda confirmed that osama bin laden was killed over the weekend. the extremist group posting its

statement on various militant website. you can hear more about navy seals over the weekend on c-span tomorrow morning at 8:30 on "washington journal." those appearances are coming up this weekend.

>> the president to visit to fort campbell being covered by the local paper there. they write that the fort campbell is home to the famous 101st airborne division. another draw for obama is the 160 it special operations aviation regiment, the highly specialized army unit that carried navy seals to the compound in pakistan five days ago.

>> a week that began for the president sunday night with the televised address announcing the death of osama bin laden and a successful raid by u.s. navy seals, ending up this afternoon in fort campbell, kentucky, as the president met with some of the members of that special operations team. he is expected here shortly to speak in front of hundreds and hundreds of soldiers and others who have gathered, many of them have just returned from afghanistan. bebel year from the president and possibly the vice-president -- the day it will hear from the president and possibly the vice- president. it is a busy week for the president. he will be in el paso, texas, tuesday delivering a speech on immigration reform.

that will be hosted by cbs news on wednesday. vice-president joe biden has his own meetings to attend on tuesday. he will restart the meetings they started yesterday on the debt and deficit. he is meeting with members of congress. that is expected tuesday in washington.

president obama has met privately with members of the special operations team that

participated in the navy seals mission against osama bin laden, resulting in the death of osama bin laden. in its first public comment since the killing of osama bin laden, robert gates said that the leaders that could benefit u.s. efforts in afghanistan. frankly, i think it is too early to make a judgment as far as the impact. and six months or so, we will know if it had made a difference, said secretary dates this morning. he sketched out a schism between the post-osama bin laden al qaeda and the taliban. that is from the "a politico." -- "politico."

>> this is fort campbell, ky, and waiting for president obama and the vice president to speak to troops, in number of them have just returned from afghanistan. the president has been meeting separately with members of the special operations team, which participated in the osama bin laden mission, a mission that resulted in the death of the terrorist leader as well as hundreds of documents, computer parts, and other information

that may prove of some value to the u.s. intelligence. a senate committee is going to hold hearings about the security of the u.s. railways after documents discovered during the raid revealed the terrorist leader had considered targeting trains. u.s. officials said the document discovered in the compound showed that al qaeda was thinking about attacking the railways on the 10th anniversary of the september 11 attacks. that should be a wake up to elected officials, a said -- he said that when it comes to threats to our national security, trains are a prime target and must be better secured credit -- must be better secured. the specific word on when those hearings will be held. we are waiting to hear from president obama.

things are running a bit late and we will stay here live on c- span.

>> president obama earlier today it was pouring the allison transmission plant in indianapolis. we will show you to those letters in our program scheduled. the president commented on the employment situation, the unemployment rate rising to 9% in april, but employers adding more than 200,000 jobs. the biggest hiring spree in years.

>> ladies and gentlemen, the deputy commanding general and the vice president of the united states. [applause] >> hello, screaming eagles.

it is good to be back with the wall. -- you all. i want to think the general for a company me up here. i get the honor of introducing the general. i was back here on february 11 to welcome home members of the brigade. the only thing more exciting was watching your families. i know many of you have just gotten home in the past few weeks, so welcome home. i know from experience that your families want more than anything to spend time with you. every time i show up at a welcome home ceremony, i'm always worried about getting away. my son came home from iraq after a year, and i thought, i want to see my kid.

i get it. what we say how much gratitude the president and i have for you all. the rescue have taken, the incredible sacrifices you have made, the losses you personally endorsed, you up in in the most inhospitable terrain in the world. i have been there a number of times. you guys were up there running around. you are amazing. i am in all of the job that you'd do -- awe of the job that you do. as i said back in february, i want to thank your families. they make sacrifices as well.

those missed births and birthdays. just not having you home. john milton said, they also serve who only stand and wait. the rest of america owes your family a debt of gratitude as well. [applause] i want to say, to the soldiers here, you are the most capable of warriors. you are the most capable warriors in the history of the world. there has never, never, never been a fighting force as capable as you are. it is my job today to talk a

little bit about the man that i get to work with every day. we just got to spend time with the assault years the got osama bin laden. [applause] by the way, the president is going to be mad the nine taking so long. , soy was grandfather's day i went by to my granddaughter's little spring play. after it was over she said, come back to my classroom. i said, i am going to fort campbell. we're going to see the guys who got osama bin laden. she said, pop -- my pops is is

going out to see the whales. if they are that good, they have to be begged. -- big. i have been around a while and i have seen president make difficult decisions. sitting in every meeting, and getting ready for this mission, i saw something extraordinary. i saw a president who was -- we could do this. they were considerably less than 100%. we sat around and they asked for our advice and we gave them our advice. finally, he just looked at all this, and he said, i have faith in these guys.

he decided because he believed in all of you. he has absolute faith in all of you and he made that determination and it was an amazing thing to watch. it was because he had the absolute confidence. that thegot in office, a number one priority was to get osama bin laden. he knew the risks, but he did not hesitate. i know bob gates for a long time and he said, it is one of the gutsiest decisions i've ever seen made. this will go down in history. here to introduce your commander in chief, the guy i am proud to serve with, is one of the country's leading warriors himself.

[applause] >> thank you, sir. i can only try to tell you today, just how proud of you this division and its local community are, but more importantly, you were going to get from the commander in chief just how appreciative he is of all of your service and your sacrifice. please join me and as great privilege of welcoming the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] [applause]

>> greater than hello, fort campbell. 101st devision, gello. hello. thank you for the extraordinary leadership you have shown. here is one of the largest army bases in america. [applause] let me just i make a lot of decisions. one of the earliest and best

decisions i made was choosing one of the finest vice president in our history, joe biden right here. [applause] captain, thank you for people invocation. i want to thank general colt for welcoming me here today. [applause] the quartet and 101st edition band. all of these troopers behind me, you look great. [applause] they kind of hesitated. we have a lot of folks in the house. we have military police and medical personnel. we have the green berets of the special forces group.

we have a few air force here. we thought we did. there we go. ok. come on. and of course, the legendary screaming eagles. although they are not in the audience, i want to acknowledge the special aviation regiment, the night stalkers. [applause] i've got to say, some of you look familiar. last december, when we were at bought royal air force base -- at baghram, it seemed like

everyone was there from 101st. since then, we have had a lot of homecomings. destiny. [applause] and some of the division headquarters. the gladiators. on behalf of a grateful nation, welcome home. of course, our thoughts and

rayers are with the screaming eagles troops who are risking their lives in theater. i am please that and campbell and some of the inspiring military spouses are here. where are they at? right over there? we are grateful to you. god bless you. thank you so much. this happens to be a military spouse appreciation day. we honor your service as well. i did not come here to make a really long speech. [laughter] it is hot. i wanted to come out and shake some hands. i came here for a simple reason, to say thank you on behalf of america. this has been an historic week in the life of our nation.

[applause] thanks to the incredible skill, courage of color as individuals in intelligence and military over many years. the terrorist leader who struck our nation online/11 will not but in america again. -- on 9/11 will never threatened america again. [applause] yesterday, i traveled to new york city. along with some of the 9/11 families, i laid a wreath in honor of their loved ones. they lost so many of their own when they rushed into those burning coppers. i promised that our nation would

never forget those we lost that dark september day. today, here at fort campbell, i had the privilege of meeting the extraordinary special ops folks who honor that promise. it was a chance for me to say on behalf of all americans and people all over the world, a job well done. job well done. [applause] they are america's quiet professionals. there's excess demand secrecy. i will say this, like all of you, they could have chosen a life of ease. but like you, they volunteer. they chose to serve in a time of war. now when they could be sent

into harm's way. they trained for years. they are battle hardened. the practice tirelessly for this mission. when i gave the order, they were ready. in recent days, the whole world has learned just how ready they were. these americans deserve credit for one of the greatest intelligence and military operations in our nation's history. so does every person who wears an american uniform. the finest military the world has ever known. that includes all of you, men and women of the 101st. [applause] you have been on the front lines of this bike for nearly 10 years. you were there -- you have been on the front lines of this fight

for nearly 10 years. you were there pushing al qaeda out of its stake havens. you went back for a second time, a third time, a fourth time. when the decision was made to go into a rock, you were there, too, making the longest -- go into iraq, you were there, too, making the longest air strike in history. you have been on the forefront of our new strategy in afghanistan. sending more of you into harm's's wade was the toughest decision i have made as commander and chief -- commander in chief. i do not make it lightly. every time the i visit walter reed or bethesda, i am reminded of the wages of war. i made that decision because i

know this mission was vital for the security of the nation we all love. i know it has not been easy for you and it certainly has not been easy for your families. since 9/11,has deployed more often and you basis have sacrificed more than you. we see it in our heroic wounded warriors fighting every day to recover and who deserve the absolute best care in the world. [applause] we see it in the mental and emotional cold that has been taken. in some cases, good soldiers have taken their own lives. we are going to keep saying to anyone who is hurting out there, do not give up. you are not alone.

you strong. most of all, we see the price of this war in the 125 soldiers from fort campbell who made the ultimate sacrifice in afghanistan. every remembrance is a solemn reminder of every burden of war, but also the deluge of loyalty and duty and honor that define your lives. here is what each of you must know. because of your service and your sacrifice, we are making progress in afghanistan. some of the toughest parts in the country are taking insurgents and leaders of of the battlefield and help the afghans reclaim their communities. across afghanistan, we have broken the taliban's momentum. in key regions, we have seized their momentum and pushed them out of their strongholds.

we are partnering with communities, police, and security forces, which have grown strong. most of all, we are making progress in our major goal, our central role in pakistan and afghanistan. we are going to ultimately defeats al qaeda. [applause] even before this week's operation, we put al qaeda's leadership under more pressure 6 9/11 on both sides of the border. the bottom line is this, our strategy is working. there is no greater evidence of that than just is finally being delivered to osama bin laden. [applause] i do not want to fool you.

this continues to be a tough fight. you know that. because of this progress, we are moving into a new phase. in the coming months, we will start transferring responsibility for security to afghan forces. in the summer, we will begin reducing american forces. as we transition, we will build a long-term partnership with the long -- with the afghan people so that al qaeda can never thought in that country again. i am confident we will succeed in this mission. the reason gills with confidence is because, in you, i see the extent of america's military. -- the strength of america's military. in the past days we have seen the resilience of the american spirit. i received a letter from a girl in new jersey.

she wrote to me on monday after the news of bin laden being killed. she explained how she still remembers that september morning almost 10 years ago. she was only 4 years old. fourth caller what traps inside the world trade center. in those final, frantic moments, knowing he might not make it, he called home. she remembers watching her mother sobbing as she spoke to her husband and then passed be found to peyton. in words that were hard to hear, he said to her, i love you and i will always be watching over you. yesterday, peyton, her mother

and her sister joined me at ground zero. these past years have been tough for her. in her letter, she said, that isn't my father died, i lost the part of me that can never be replaced. she described herself as a child struggling to shine through the darkness in her life. every year, she is shining through. she is playing sports. she is mentoring understood this. she is looking ahead to high- school in the ball. yesterday, she was with us. a strong, confident young woman, honoring her father's memory even as she set her sights on the future. former and for all about, this week has been a reminder of what we are about as a people. it is easy to forget sometimes, especially in times of hardship,

times of uncertainty, coming out of the worst recession since the great depression. we have not fully recovered from that. we have made enormous sacrifices. in two wars. the essence of america, the values that have defined a for more than 200 years, are strong that ever. we are still the america that does the hard things, that does the great things. we are the nation that always geared to dream. when the nation that is willing to take risks, revolutionaries breaking free up an empire, pioneers going west, putting a man on the surface of the moon. we are the nation and you are the division that parachute behind enemy lines on d-day.

we are the nation that, all those years ago, sent your division to a high school in arkansas so that nine black kids could get an education. everyone deserves a chance to realize their god-given potential. we are a nation that has faced tough times before, cupper times than these. when the depression came, when our nation was attacked on that september day, when disaster strikes like that tornado, we do not alter. we do not turn back. we pick ourselves up. we get on with the hard task of keeping our country strong and safe. there is nothing we cannot do it together. when we remember who we are, that is the united states of america, when we remember that no problem is too high end of

challenges to great and that is why i am is so confident that with your great service, america's greatest days are still to come. god bless you. god bless the 101st and god bless the united states of america. [applause]

♪ ♪ ["living in america" playing]

♪

♪

the president and vice

president awarded unit citation awards to the people involved in the osama bin laden raid the other night. we will give you comments coming up at 8:00 eastern tonight. tomorrow, on "washington journal" we will be speaking with the associate editor of the atlantic magazine talking about the latest jobs numbers. also a former navy seal and author. he will talk about what it is like to be a navy seal. on the program tomorrow, if you are taking the best placement government exam, it is time to cram for the exam. we will have teachers from the school. "washington journal" begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. sunday night, another

perspective from a former navy seal. dick couch will be talking about his experience with the navy seals. >> michele bachmann is here. she is thinking about running for president. that is weird because i hear she was born in canada. [laughter] yes, michele bachmann, this is how it starts. >> big deal of president's appearance at the white house correspondents' dinner is our most youtube video ever. -- our most you do to video ever. >> next, a senior executive at boeing warned that the u.s. is in danger of losing its position as the top dog in the aerospace industry. he talks about the shuttle

program and the need to shield education funding from budget cuts federally and locally. he spoke to the foundation event and at an aviation conference. this is 35 minutes. >> we are going to have our lunch and keynote speaker next. he has agreed to speak zero or your clatter. as your mother taught you, i hope you will use your silverware silently. so that we will be able to enjoy this next presentation. we first want to thank boeing and james albaugh for being the key sponsors for this entire event. it is a big undertaking. we are most grateful to boeing. jim, we appreciatee a time

away from what he is going to have to say other than jim albaugh has been with the boeing company for 36 years, and during that 36 years, he h had thee most incredible background. it's really an amazing career for any one person. he has been president and ceo of many different divisions and businesses at boeing that it would be har to remember them all, but he started out as president of the rocket dyno propulsion and power division and then president and ceo of boeing space transportation, and then president and ceo of boeing integrated defen systems and also president and ceo of the boeing space and communications division. i believe he was president of a couple of others that i may have missed, but in every one of

these positions, it was because of jim's leadership and capabilities tt he was moved to the next presidency to take over once again and make that a stronger program, and so when he speaks to you today, i know you'll see why because he's a great speaker, but he's also a great leader, and needless to say, jim, you have been the right man at the right time for so many different jobs at the boeing company, and now you're the right man at the rit time to be the luncheon keynote speaker, so please come forward. [applause] >> well, good afternoon, everybody, and thank you for that introduction, carol. you can see i vice president had a very -- haven't had a good time of holding on to jobs. i keep moving around. i'll touch on not only commercial aviation, but defense and also space as well.

it's good to look out at the crowd. i see a lot of good friends, customers, competitors, and i should have checked the program because i see allen mccarter is talking after me, and i was hoping i'd talk after him. we're great friends, and it's a healthy competition, and it's very good for the industry. i want to talk about the importance of aerospace, you know, talk about the state of aerospace today, and talk about some of the challenges that i think we have. i really do believe that our industry is at a cross roads. nobody's ahead of the united states in aerospace, at least not yet, and we are the industry's leader and build the industry's most capable airplanes. look at the programs we have coming from the department of defense, they are really unparalleled. the commercial satellites, military satellites we have do things that are just phenomenal and our orbital man space

program is second to none, and unfortunately we're parking the shuttle sometime very, very soon, but i think the leadership position we're in is threatened, and certainly there are other countries that would like to come after the dominance we enjoy right now, and, you know, we're not in the business of reclaiming our lead. we have the lead. i think the question is are we going to take the steps necessary to maintain that leadership position, or are we going to allow aerospace to join that list of u.s. industries that we used to lead? i'll talk about that today. you know, to understand why it's so important, let's take a look at what aerospace has done for our countriment i was very fortunate to join aerospace in the last quarter of the 20th century, and to me, aerospace really defines the 20th century. you think about commercial airplanes and it shrank the world and brought countries

together and in world war ii you think about the tens of thousands of airplanes build and technologies that bring us together and certainly when we walked on the moon for the first time, it changed foreve how we look at the world around us. i'm convinced that aerospace defines the 21st century. i think the question we have will it be u.s. aerospace that does that? i think that's a critical question because aerospace truly does help to keep america strong. you know, there's no industry that has a bigger impact on our economy than aerospace. look at exports, there's a $53 billion surplus as a result of what the people in thisoom do. you know, president obama called for doubling of our exports over the next five years, and aerospace will be in a leership role in doing that, and if you look at the impact of civil aviation alone has on the country, it's really

breathtaking. it's responsible for 12 million job generating around 6% of gdp. what's the commercial marketplace look like today? it's vibrant, growing, challenging, but rapidly changing as well. those of you in the room who operate airlines know what happened in the last 15 months. the market really has come roaring back. 2010 was a year everybody really enjoyed. it's been subdued somewhat this year as a result of oil prices, but still, in a very positive position. in boeing there's a seven year backlog, $263 billion, and with air traffic increasing at 1.5 times the world gdp, youknow, we think the future is pretty good. you know, our estimate is that the gdp is going up over the next five years between 3.5%-4%. you do the multiplication on

at and not discounting what's going on in northern africa or the fuel prices, over the next 20 years, we believe there's a market for some 31,000 commercial airplanes or $36 trillion, and that's a markplace a lot of companies and countries with eyeing. there's a lot of factors to shape the market, and i'll talk about some of them. first is globalization and the second is competition and the third is some of the shifting demographics we have in our work force. let's talk about globalization, you know, first. the world is very interconnected, but i think that interconnection certainly has made the world much more complicated as well. we saw th earthquake in japan and despite the fact that the epicenter was some 4,000 miles away from our nufacturing facilities in pugot sound, it impacted us. tom friedman was correct when he said the world was flat. globalization means many of the

partners we deal with and you deal with are outside the united states and globalization does drive air traffic. we went back and took a look at air traffic back 20 years ago, and about 72% of it was in the united states and it was in europe, and we project out another 20 years, and the numb is 45% and soon half the world's gdp comes from emerging companies and that changes the marketplace. we've seen increased competition, and we know it's been interesting between air busts and boeing and allen would agree with me it's rapidly ending. in other companies and countries are attracted by that $3.6 trillion market i talked about. there's china and dray zill, canada and russia. ..

and they're building the 737. that will be an airplane i think will compete very well in china. eventually they'll beat an airplane that competes around the world with bowing and airbus. they're investing $30 billion in this industry over the next ten years. they are one of three countries that has pit a man into space, which is something i know a little bit about. it's a very hard thing to do, going from zero to 22,000 feet in 8 1/2 minutes, that's hard to do. i have no doubt they will build a very good airplane. at the same time, china is the

largest market that we have and we've gone from being a supplier to customer to a supplier and competitor and done that in about 40 years. they have decided to make airplane manufacturing a national priority. i'm sure they will be successful. now i i think that presents another issue for many industrialists in the united states. it's a huge marketplace. a marketplace where you have to pay to play. like any country where we put technology, we have to be very careful we're not giving away technology that ultimately could help a competitor compete with us around the world. it's interesting china, you go there, it's amazing every time that i visit the improvements, change that's have been made and certainly they will do that in their aerospace industry as well. in the meanwhile, threats evolved as well. in the cold swar, we knew who

our enemy was and trusted them not to use weapons of mass destruction. today we often don't know who the enemy is but we know given the chance, they will use those weapons. they have done it before. lockhe grummond and all the aerospace contractors in the united states. e simply are not producing we simply are not producing enough engineers to support the needs in years to come. call the intellectual disarmament of this country.

and that along will put our country at risk. if we continue on this path we could lose our lead in aerospace and break that long-standing continuum of capability in our industry, and our economy will lose an important engine of growth and our country also could become more vulnerable and less secure. now, that's kind of a tough picture to maintain but, you know, companies like boeing will survive. we will go to where the years are. if we are not producing them in the united states we will go where they are, where the capabilities might exist. in my view, you know, our industry right now faces, you know, five different threats, you know, one the industrial base, our weakening industrial base, a lack of innovation and technology, a good environment and a level playing field and our industry as an industry and as a country we have to decide, you know, how we're going to respond to those threats. you know, today i think we take our industrial base for granted

but we do so, i believe, at our own peril. think about what a strong industrial base has meant for this country, you know, over the last 60 or 70 years. it was the arsenal democracy as i mentioned during world war ii. it put a man on the moon. it made america the world leader in space, commercial aviation and defense. but a strong industrial base is really is not a given. it's a product of the right policies, the right investments, the right priorities but also it takes a lot of time to put in place. you know, we don't have to look very far to see what can happen and how quickly an industrial base can be diminished. you don't have to look any further than the u.k. they used to have a great tradition, both commercial and military airplanes, and now they're buying f-35, c-17s, you know, apaches and chinooks as we as airbus and boeing airplanes. they don't manufacture airplanes in their country anymore.

they realized they needed an industrial policy in place and they put in place and it will take years and it will take decades. when we don't inve in development programs and when policymakers don't consider how procurement decisions impact the industrial base, we risk losing talent and expertise that has taken us decades to build up. our engineering challenge is not a fixed asset. if they don't have work to do in the area ospace area, they will go to other industries or they'll retire. and reconstituting that capability will be very difficult to do. you know, right now believe it or not with e f-35 in the flight test program, there are no department of defense airplane programs in development. and i think this is the first time that we've been in that situation in probably over 100 years. you know, my view as we risk following the u.k. and dismantling our industrial base if we don't do something about that. now, you might say that we're

building airplanes for the military so, you know, that's not a problem from an industria based standpoint. i would admit to you that being a viable contractor, to be an integrator of very complex syems, you have to understand how to do r & d. you have to take r & d into detail designed and into production. you have to run your production systems and you have to have a very healthy supply chain. and what we're seeing right now with no new starts in the department of defense is we are losing our capability to do detailed design. we're losing our capability to transition design into manufacturing. once that's gone, it will take a long time to reconstitute. so i know this is an issue -- that was one of the problems we had on the 7a7 ogram. we had not done a new development program since the 777 and we paid the price as a result. on the space side, tens of thousands are very eerienced engineers are going to be going out the door, you know, very

soon. once we pa this shuttle, you're going to see, you know, thousands and thousands of people who have taken 50 years to really build that capability up and go out the door. you may have seen recently where united space alliae who operates the shuttle for the -- for nasa, they announced they're laying off 2500, you know, engineers last week. and, you know, once the shuttle is parked this summer, i would submit to you and the articl in "usa today" notwithstanding, i would submit to you that the chinese will walk on the moon before we once again put an american into lower orbit and it's unconscionable that we would do that. there's steps to take, every country is concerned about strengthening their industrial base. and the one we have in this country is one of market forces that in my mind that is not a

clear, coherent or comprehensive-enough policy for the united states of america. and i'm not saying we need a policy that defines specific outputs and production or that we need to build things that people don't want. but we need to start a dialog about an industrial strategy to ensure the long-term viability of our defense and industrial base. it's critical to the long-term econom and national security of this country. we can't we up a dece from now and decide that we want a capability and find that we don't have any contractors that ha that capability or have the ability to do development programs, and i fear that that's the direction we might be going. this is an area where we can engage in dialog. the industrial base might not seem essential but think about what commercial aviation has gotten from the defense side, you know, things like radar, things like gps and the heads up display, satellite communications, all things, you

know, very important to what we do. and i could go on and on with that list. if you realize the indtrial base affects everyone in this room. i find it curious that the industrial base was not considered during the tanker competition or at least it wasn't apparent to me that it was the government was willing to put a lot of work offshore and, unfortunately, that didn't happen. but i don't think anybody should think that just one program is going to be enough to sustain the industrial base in this country. it's not. you know, the second threat to america's leadership in aerospace concerns innovation and technology, and we're seeing much more competition on the commercial and defense sides from around the world. in commercial aviation, i talked about the new entrants from canada, from brazil, from russia and from china. and we're also seeing, you know,

other people enter the defense market as well. i know that many saw the new j-20, the chinese stealth fighter as a threat. you know, i really saw it as a new competitor in the global defense marketplace, and it will be. and i think to win in the face of increasing competition and subsidized competition, the only way that we can do that is through better innovation and technology. and at boeing what we always say we want to do is to make sure that we're building today's airplanes -- we're building tomorrow's airplane when the competitor is building today's airplane. the 787 dream liner is a great example of that. it's an airplane to say it' the first new airplane of the 21st century and i know that airbus delivered the 8380 in the 21st century but i would submit to you that the 787 is the first airpla to use 21st century technologies in the manufacture and development of the airplane.

you know, some companies build an airplane and then they try to sell it. whate do we sell an airplane and then we try to build it and sometimes that presents some issues for us. [laughter] >> you're reading about some of those, i know. but what it does, it always provides an ailane that people and will continue to do that. and from my perspective, there's certain ingredients to innovation that you can't be successful without. you know, first of all, you have to have a dire to be the best. you have to compete on the world's stage. you want to make sure that you' always building the best that you can in the markets that you serve. you also have to have a commitment to invest in technology and also in the human resources necsary for innovation. you also have to have a culture of openness where people are very comfortable talking about radicaideas, pushing the envelope and changing the way things have always been understood to be built or to be

designed. and then you have to have a skilled, capable work force and leadership culture that encourages innovation. and then i think you also have to have an awareness that the best ideas don't necessarily come from your company but can come from other companies and also other countes around the world. you know, innovation is very important to my company. i know it's very important to all the companies that you represent. but it also, i think, represents, you know, america's future. you know, studies have shown that technologand innovation have been accountable for about half of our gdp over the last couple of decades. and looking ahead, innovation is going to be just as important as we go forward. just imagine in aerospace some of the innovations that we could see. i mean, you could see smart composites that actually morph in flight, you know, based on the aerodynamic loa that they see. we'll have airplanes that fly on bio fuels i'm sure very soon and billy glover i know will talk abouthat later today.

you could have hyper sonic wave riders that skim across the top of the atmosphere. those are all things that are very doable and will be done. i think the question is, will we do them or will somebody else do them? there are a number of policies that i think that are important that encourage innovation in america and certainly the r & d tax credit is one of those. and wherever r & d goes, innovation and economic growth follow. the tax credit will expire once again at the end of this year, and i think we all subscribe to the fact that we need a permanent, stable and predictable incentive for research in the united states. and when you think about the tax credit, the r & d tax credit, last year it supported some 18,000 different companies and presidenobama wants to spend 3% of our gdp on r & d and certainly a permanent tax credit will help us do that. you know, the third major threat of american aviation, i think, comes from the environment. it will be something that will limit our growth if we can't

figure out, you know, how to reduce the carbon footprint that we have. i think everybody kns that about 2% of the carbon footprint in this world comes from commercial airplanes. it's not only c02, though, that we're going to be asked to reduce. we're going to be asked to reduce noe. traffic density is going to be an issue and i think we're going to be limited also by air infrastructure. and when we taka look at the environmental issues we face, there really are five areas we're focusing on that are aerodynamics. we're focusing on lightweight materials. we're working with the engine companies on more efficient engines. we're looking at biofuels and we also think that there's great promise in atm and i know that's a subject that has been talked about here today and will be talked about, i'm sure, a little bit later today. you know, at boeing, about 75% of our r & d has direct applicability to the environment. and it's amazing when you think about what we've achieved over the last 50 years, there's been a 70% reduction in fuel

consumption on fuel on airplanes and a resulting c02 fuel reduction. the progress continues today. if one looks at the 747-8 airplane that's in flight test right now, it's going to burn 16% less fuel than the 747-400 that it replaces and if one looks at the 787 dreamliner will have a 7% reduction and a 737 and 777 that we're delivering today much more efficient than the ones we initially delivered to our customer years ago. in terms of noise, another incredible story, you know, over the last 50 years we've been able to reduce the noise footprint by some 90%. infrastructure, though, is going to be a limiting factor in the u.s., as many of you know it, can take up to 20 years to get all the permits in place and also to build a new runway. and you compare that to what's going on in places like china where they plan to construct from 45 to 55 new airports over

the next five years. and to the best of my knowledge there aren't pla to buildny new airports in the united states during that time period. air traffic management, i think, has huge potential. it could reduce the carbon footprint by anywhere from 10 to 20% depending on who you're talking to. when you look at the money that we're spending on the 787, you look at the money airbus is spending on the a350, you know, we will reduce the carbon footprint on those two airplanes dramatically from the airplanes they replace. but a similar investment for next generation air traffic management system will reduce the carbon footprint from 10 to 20% on every airplane flying today. it's an investment that we need to make. let me talk about the policies, though, we need a sound approach to the environment that achieves real results but does not disadvantage u.s. industries relative to international competitors. and i'm very pleased that there

is an international body that's working to make sure that we have consistency in those policies, you know, around the world. we need a level playing field where everyone in aerospace operates within a rules-based trading system. and we were very pleasedo see the recent w.t.o. decision that there will be a message with everybody we're competing with that the rules-base is important and that we all need to play the same way. vigorous enforce of the w.t.o. rules we hope will send a message and i think it will. another big issue for us is the export/imimportant bank and i know it's important to talk about banks. last year they guaranteed some $34 billion worth of loans which helped us sustained over

$200,000 jobs in the united states of america. and 85% of their loans, you know, directly supported small business in the united states. and it's also a bank that didn't need to be bailed out. it's actually a bank that returned money to the united states government. since 1992, you know, they have put $5 billion back into the treasury as a result of the loan guarantees they put out there to many of the airlines that i know that are in this room. and if one thinks about, you know, what it takes to reauthorize the bank, you know, we think that it will be a real step in the right direction double the exports that president obama is talking about. now, we can get all those things right that i talked about but unless we address th issues we have with education, i don't think it will matter because the future of aerospace, i believe, is dependent on the educational system we have in this country. it used to be the best and bright jessica to the united

states. they studied and they stayed. and now ey study, they go home and they compete with us. you know, we have, as i mentioned, half of our engineers who can retire in the next five years. that's half of 36,000 engineers. and we know we're going to have a very difficult time replacing them because not nearly enough engineers are graduating from college. it's about 60, 70,000 a year. and you go to a country like poland, it's about the fifth of the size of the united states. they're graduating just as many engineers as we are in this couny. and you have to wonder why american students, you know, aren't embracing engineering as enthusiastically as they are in other parts of the world. and i think part of it is the fact that engineers really aren't celebrated in this country the way they should be. i was in moscow -- i think it was in september. i went to the cemetery right outside -- right outside of red square and i was walking around and, you know, they had the grav of many importa

historical figures in the 20th century in russia. they had artists, you know, and they had play wrights and they had government officials and people from the military but buried among, you know, those very famous people we all know were many of the engineers and scientists and physicists of the soviet union during the 20th century. you know, all very famous airplane designers and they had places of stature among the rest of the famous russians. and it made me wonder when was the last time we saw the picture of an engineer on the cover of "time" magazine or some journal in the united states? you know, i think it's also interesting to note that in china, you know, their leader today is an engineer and the heir apparent is an engineer as well. and i think another reason why too few students today pursue careers in math, science and technology is because we haven't

really inspired them with exciting goals. i think young people around the world are looking for careers where they can make a difference, where they can grow and reach their full potential. and where they can connect with something that's greater than themselves. and, you kno i think we can recapture some of that imagination and my generation and many of you were drawn to aerospace because president kennedy'mission to go to the moon but we have many important things to do in this country as well. and i think that the real goal of engineers of the next, you know, 50, 60 years is going to be to help save the spaceship we're all on together and that's the planet earth and i think they will have a chance to work on things like energy dependen, global warming, you know, health care and they're going to do tremendous things to rebuild the infrastructure and i know they'll do amazing tngs in aerospace as well. but if we're going to inspire people to go into those s.t.e.m. related careers we have to have

a good k-12 educational system and despite the fact we are spending more than other countries, we certainly aren't having the results. and i ow in many states right now are struggling with budgets. especially in the state of washington we certainly are but if there's one thing we need to put around, a defense around relative to reduced spending it can't be education. and all of us have a role -- i know every company in this room is doing something to support s.t.e.m. but at the end of the day, education really is a public responsibility. and if there's one thing that our country should guarantee is every child growing up gets a good, quality public education. now, in closing, you know, maybe i've painted a challenging -- a challenging picture of the future, and i think it is challenging, but i have no doubt that we're going to be able to take the right steps and we're going to continue to keep the lead that we currently have today. when you go back to 1903 when the wright brothers first flew, you know, they flew 120 feet in

12 seconds and, you know, i was thinking about that. 120 feet, you could put that flight in the inside of a 747-8 intercontinental, you know, it's amazing how far we've come, you know, decades later, neil armstrong went and walked on the moon and during the '60s all the astronauts were given a little personal packet that they could put some personal belongings into and neil armstrong, whom i know many of the people in here know, what he asked for was a piece of the wood of the propeller of the 1903 wright flier and also a piece of fabric om his wing. that thread started with the wright brothers and continued, you know, through apollo is going to continue today. and i don't think that anybody can do what america can do in aviation aerospace. we'vproved that time and time again. you know, the lead that we have today is ours to keep or it's ours to lose. the advantages that aviation gives the united states of

america is ours to keep or it's ours to squander. by every measure i think, you know, aviati helps answer, you know, the toughest questions about america's future, a future that i think will continue that we have the power to shape. thank you and i think, carol, questions, is that right? >> that is correct, jim. we are going to take about five minutes of questions. but let's first give jim a big round of applause. [applause] >> we can start out with questions from the floor, and i can't imagine that there wouldn't be some who wouldn't like to ask a question of jim albaugh. all right. we have the first one right down here. i believe that's don phillips who is waiting for a microphone. >> can you hear me?

yeah, okay. >> i can. >> you mentioned

>> i see a lack of a infrastructure. yodon't have to go very far utside of the united states to certainly surpassed us and the quality infrastructure they have. talking about roads, talking about high-speed rail, talking about air traffic management. i hope we don't get left behind there as well. >> jim, i might follow up on that because tom donohue talked not only about supporting boeing and your effort to stay in south carolina, but he also talked about the importance of infrastructure and chamber has a huge infrastructure effort under way where the public/private partnerships are a big potential obviously. public private partnerships are very popular in other parts of the world. we really see this as a very important role for business to enter into this with us within what we're doing. we hope that you and the boeing

company and airbus and others will take a lead in helping us come up with new ways in which we can do the necessary financing. besides taxes for the infrastructure of the future. waterways and hhways but it's also broadband and certainly the electric energy grid and other aspects. >> well, we certainly will and i know that's something ellen and i totally agree on. a lot of limiting factors to the airlines, you know, i mentioned some of them, you know, atm, airports, the environmental questions. you look at some of the threats we have in europe. they're not building airports. they are building high-speed rail, plug-in nuclear reactors, i mean, those are all threats. >> we have one last question for jim albaugh. right over here, if you can get the -- i thought we saw a hand up over here. jim, i can't believe that the

president doesn't want to ask you a question. >> i think they asked them all in the earnings call this morning. >> here we go, right down here. >> a question for you about the overall industrial policy for 787. you talk about the overall moving toward engineering areas offshore where engineers may be more available. back in 2001/2002,/2003, a lot of the resources were being allocated offshore. would you say that's either a symptom of the demographic changes or cause of the demographichanges that are being taken place in the u.s.? >> let me make sure i was very clear on that. when i said that we'll go where the engineers are, we will you know, clearly we're a u.s. company. you know, having the engineers colocated close to work is important. but in the event we can't hire the engineers in the united states because they're not available, you know, we'll go to where they are. right now we've got a design

center in moscow, for instance. we've got some 1200 engineers there. we've got some 400 that code software for us. we've got six r & d centers around the world. and my guess is that we'll continue to take advantage of skilled workers wherever they might be. here we are talking about boeing employees. we're not talking about moving up the value chain and asking our suppliers who maybe don't have the skills of value chain to do that and i'm talking about boeing employees. >> jim albaugh. you are a star and you're fabulous to be here today. e appreciate it. >> the president and vice president biden were in ft. campbell, kentucky. they met with some of the special operations forces who conducted the special operation against osama bin laden. the president also awarded the units involved.

a presidential unit citation, the highest such honor that could be given to a unit. later the president and vice president addressed air larger group of troops at ft. campbell. we're going to bring that to you tonight beginning at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. next up on c-span, discussion on the results and impact of monday

it. >> the president and vice president biden were in ft. campbell, kentucky. they met with some of the special operations forces who conducted the special operation against osama bin laden. the president also awarded the units involved. a presidential unit citation, the highest such honor that could be given to a unit. later the president and vice president addressed air larger group of troops at ft. campbell. we're going to bring that to you tonight beginning at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. next up on c-span, discussion on the results and impact of monday's canadian parliamentary elections, courtesy of cpac, canada's public affairs channel. for the first time since taking office in 2006, stephen harper's conservative party has a majority in parliament. the new democratic party, led by jake leighton came in second place, beating the liberals. here's a look at what's next courtesy of c-pac. >> our journalist panel will look into what to expect from stephen harper's majority government in the weeks to come.

>> we will be getting back to him shortly. >> you heard him say he was at the governor's residence in ottawa earlier today. if stephen harper has a majority government, it's partly due to the efforts of jason kenny. kenny is immigration minister and the man spom for the kov tive party's outreach strategy to ethnic communities. that strategy drew a lot of attention just before the election when an internal party document surfaced outlining the detailed approach to targeting so-called ethnic and very ethnic writings. on monday victories in many of those writings, especially in the greater toronto area, helped give the tories a majority government. i'm joined by jissen kennedy in calgary. thank you very much for taking the time. i want to start where the smoke is cleared and we're there after the election. i want to ask you and get your appraisal of how your ethnic outreach efforts in these

elections, specifically how successful do you think they were? >> i think based on all of the evidence they were actually very successful, martin. this is not just about me. it's a team effort led by the prime minister. he identified as a central priority for our party in government, the need to reflect the diversity of the country in our sort of electoral coalition and ended our policies and caucus and i think we succeeded in that. just to back up a step, according to the canada election survey, martin, which is a huge survey done of tens of thousands of exit polls by a group of academics, in 2004, the liberals had about a 50-point lead over the conservatives amongst visible minority voters. that's not necessarily all immigrants and explores new canadians. but at least amongst that cohort, liberals had a 50-point advantage. in the 2006 campaign, that went down to about a 20-point advantage.

in the '08 campaign, it was a dead heat. i'm certain both amongst visible minority canadians and new canadians, those born aboard, we had a significant lead on election day this year. >> can you give us your breakdown? you have toured all of these writings. you have been active. which one do you think you one? terms of the success of the policy. let's take the greater toronto area. a lot of victories being attributed to the writings you made in the greater toronto area and even downtown toronto? >> i think that's fair to say. you can look at the democracy of the various that we won and most are very diverse. to give you an example, richmond british columbia. alice wong was reelected but her margin went wait up, 49% to 58%, that's where 70% of the constituents are of asian origin, which means she clearly won the strong majority of those votes. similarly we won in vancouver south, 45%, 46% and it is well

about over two-thirds of asian origin. similarly, you can look in the d.t.a., half the population in three brampton writings, huge, south asian communities and we would some with large margins. these were ones we are typically was losing by 20,000 votes. >> and we follow the candidates and spent several days there, one candidate said the whole outreach program quote/unquote it was all about and you described it breaking the liberal monopoly over new canadian voters and their votes f that's the case, do you still need this program? do you still need to be targeting and have a concerted effort and documents that leaked to the media about targeting ennick voters? a lot of people say no, treat us like canadians. if you achieved the success and leveled the playing field, do

you need this? will >> let me see a word about this notion of targetsing. i find liberals' criticism of our efforts to reach out more than hypocritical. actually distasteful. because they're the party that for so long monopolize and eventually ended up taking for granted the support of new canadians in culture communities. when talk about -- when conservatives do it, liberals refer to it as nefarious targeting. when they do it it's nation building. what it is is simply this, it's marketing. a political party like anyone needs to communicate their message in a way that's relevant to the various target audiences. in some cases, there are many canadians who consume most of their information in nonofficial languages. so we go to their media outlets. and talk to them and we talk to them about issue that's matter to them. and we reach out and attend their events. i don't think there's anything nefarious about that. it's a natural part of democratic politics. one of the reasons we made this

breakthrough, martin, the liberals took for granted new canadeyns in culture communities for so long. that's why we will not give up on it. that's why we will go even harder in working to represent and reflect interest and values of new canadians. let me make one core point, our approach has not been based on what some people call pandering or community-specific appeals. it's based on a fundamentally honest pitch, which is vote your values fufment believe hard work should be rewarded through lower taxes, you're probably a conservative. if you believe in the importance of family as a social institution, respect for tradition, respect for religious freedom, law and order, you're probably conservative. that's where we find a huge, natural and obvious alignment between most canadians in the conservative party and the phenomenal breakthrough in the campaign. >> i'm looking ahead to ask you specific questions. you're an immigration minister. we may have a cabinet shuffle soon. let's look at the intentions of

the new majority government. will you be introducing or your government reintroducing the bill to crackdown on human smuggling? this was owe owe podse by the opposition parties, saying it created refugees and violated the charter rights. will you be introducing that, the one that allows you to describe mass arrivals and prevent them from getting landing immigrant status? >> yes, it is in our platform and i think it's important to act on that sooner than later given the possibility of a summer travel>> let me ask you r question. we mentioned springdale. we were there with your candidate. he was saying to people publicly that he employed people to help people in the constituency with their visa applications. we discussed it. what do you think about a

candidate? a candidate helping people with visawriting of pis applications? what you make of it? >> decisions on these applications are always and only made by professional members of the canadian public service. they are not made by the minister mp's our candidates. in the brampton area, you have a lot got folks who are new canadians and have family and friends visit, the number one issue is immigration case work. a candidate from any party going door-to-door is inevitably going to get flooded with requests for information and help. the candidate can either say, i am here to ask for your old ted.

i am not here to answer your -- i am just here to ask for you vote. they can provide advice on immigration related matters as long as they do not take pay back for it. that is perfectly legal. candidates from all parties probably do that. candidates are here to be helpful to people. a lot of people are going to him is because their local incumbent was not helpful. i have heard that in that constituency. she lost by 10,000 votes. >> what is your relationship with yourgill? he says -- what is your relationship with mr. gill? >> he is a candidate. i have worked with them in the

party. he is a good guy. my relationship is the same as it is with other conservative candidates. i support them and i provide them with political advice. none of them have any kind of influence on the decisions made on visas and other immigration matters. >> they hired people to help constituents in the day -- in the middle of an election campaign. is that proper? he said he had three people working on visa applications. you are regulating the immigration industry. is that proper? >> again, it is. is permissible for individuals to provide voluntary advice to the folks on immigration matters. if they are paid, they have to

be a licensed member of the designated regulatory body. i understand people were not being paid. >> in terms of the candidate, does that also into the realm of is there a quid pro quo or an understanding that you are getting things? here is a demand for services and there is a voted coming up. >> visa decisions are made in an unfettered way. i cannot express an opinion on a visa application. there's no way a candidate can do that. people come to a candidate and say, my brother is submitting a visa application. what should they put on its? they can say, you need to provide this information.

providing that kind of information is entirely legitimate under our legal framework. there is nothing that says candidates cannot be helpful to their constituents. >> a lot of people talk about your majority government now. is it harder to deal with issues, socially conservative issues? i am think about the big ones. things like abortion and same- sex marriage. is it harder for you to resist pressure on your party to reopen questions like that? >> our policy, our platform has been cleared. we are not proposing legislation on abortion as a government. we have had that discussion in the last three or four election campaigns. our policy platform is clear. the prime minister has been clear about that. from time to time, there are

bills that are introduced that are on moral issues. there was a bill to legalize euthanasia. the tradition has always been in all parties to have free votes on those matters. member should declare their stance on those issues in front of their constituents. whore might be a lot of mp's will be bringing forward bills of that nature. i hope they will be dealt with on a 3 vote basis. >> congratulations on your personal victory. we will talk to you again. thanks a lot. one of the other big stories in this election was the aren't wave -- orange wave or the orange crush. the party gained 66 new seats. that shattered previous records.

most of the seats came from quebec. almost every new mp is a first- time parliamentarian. beguine- -- peggy nash is a new parliament member. congratulations on winning back your writing in toronto. tell us about your win. are you part of this orange crush? . >> thank you for your congratulations. i believe the national campaign helped us in parts of toronto. jack layton's appeal to people to reach out for change into believe we can do better in canada and our platform that was pragmatic and measured spoke to

the need for greater affordability for canadian families, getting concrete things done. that played a big role in our win. >> you are also party president. do you have to step down? what comes next? will you stay on as president? >> no, i will not. we have a convention coming up next month. at that time, we will have elections for party president. i will not run again. i will have enough to do with my mp duties. >> as one of the few new mp's, are you concerned about the level of experience of these new 65mp's. -- 65 mp's. one is a teenager and one is in

his 20's. >> it is good to bring energy and creativity and new imagination to federal politics. we were talking about how to engage young people. we just elected a number of young people. that is a terrific bang. not everybody has to have the same experience. we will have a group of mp's that represent the diversity of canadians and will bring a variety of perspectives. new people getting elected for the first time -- we will have a learning curve. i've had a learning curve when i was first elected. that is part of any new position that anyone would come and to. those of us who have more experience will reach out and work with them. let me also say, there are people getting elected with the first time who are leaders, who are committed to leaders, aboriginal leaders, keen legal

minds, people have a variety of experience. just because someone is being elected for the first time as a member of parliament does not mean they bring -- they do not bring a wealth of experience with them. >> in some corners and some circles, people are saying, people did not expect to be elected and did not expect to give the time to become a member of parliament. people are saying, they are going to -- are they going to be fully engaged in their functions. do you think there's going to be a cracking of the whip and a reading of the riot act to a few of them so that you all are on the same page? >> whenever you have a moved or changed, people get elected hoops did not think they had a

chance of getting elected. that can happen. i have a lot of confidence in the ability of those who were selected to run, people who met the test of getting beat voters to endorse them -- of getting the voters to endorse them. all of the members of parliament will turn their attention to the demanding job of representing their constituency and it will perform to the best of their ability. i am excite is for them. it diversity of experience is that we have been the age differential -- it is great to have young people engaged in politics. and now coming into our fourth thought -- our federal parliament. it will be a breath of fresh air. that is what canadians voted for. >> in your last stint as a

member of parliament, you were part of the effort to block the takeover of -- the radar sat. would you be interned -- would you be interested in the industry portfolio? >> that is not my decision. it is up to the leadership of the party now to decide who its best into which portfolio. i certainly did enjoy the work of industry credit. i am a thrill that donald -- he said he could not survive unless it was taken over by a u.s. military company. it is home to so many high skilled workers. it is creating some of the cutting edge best state technology in the world, absolutely unique. it is a canadian success story. it is something i was proud to

play a small part in. i am sure that whatever i am called on to do, in whatever portfolio and whatever capacity will be exciting as well. barrett a lot of work to do. we are all point to roll up our sleeves and try to get as much a cheap for canadians as we possibly can in the upcoming parliament. >> there has been so much celebration in your ranks about the incredible present you set for your -- the incredible precedent you set for your party. you may be in the opposition, but you will not have the leverage our the leverage to stop the government on major issues here it is a majority government. it is -- is it a bittersweet achievements? >> no, i do not think so. i am terrifically proud of the

campaign we ran and what we have achieved. absolutely breathtaking to see the number of new democrat members of parliament we elected across this country. having been in a much smaller caucus, i have seen firsthand the world that new democrats can play in the house of commons. the mcdonald that weiler -- make story is aner example. we will work with whatever parliament canadians elect to get things done for canadian families. we will try to reach out to conservatives. we will try to reach out to other party members. there are always ways to try to build bridges to get things done. we do not write anybody off because of their party stripes. jack layton's history is managing to make change and get things done.

sometimes it is against all odds. we have a clear set of goals that we want to achieve. we are going to find every avenue we can to move forward with those goals. >> thank you. we will be watching with interest. the collapse of the liberal party on monday's election is still being discussed. how did the party lose 43 seats? what went wrong? what will become of the party and its popular vote? who will take over as leader after michael ignatieff stepped down yesterday. during the now is carolyn bennett. she saw many --joining me now is carolyn bennett. sheets of many fellow liberals go down in defeat. i will ask you a question you

ask yourself and many have asked you. what happened on monday night? what cost you so many seeds and your bid for government? >> the main thing was the orange crush. it ate into what many liberals needed in order to win. in a lot of our writings, there is a conservative core of 30%. when the liberals pulled out, you got beaten from the left as well. we lost a lot of good members of parliament. >> what does it mean. people are talking about and orange crush. as you know, all of those colleagues you saw went down in defeat.

how do you differentiate two parties? what did you take from it. ? >> we had a good platform that appealed to a lot of strategic voters. our leaders performed extremely well. with the excitement around the rise of the ndp in quebec, tradition and ndp supporters decided it would be okay for them to vote ndp. there were a lot of calls from people saying, glenn, we thought you would be ok if we votes ndp. it is clear that that was not the case. >> is that the opposite of strategic voting? are you saying they did not want the ndp?

>> they felt 32 vote ndp and they got a conservative. like many of the writings in toronto, the number of people who voting ndp allowed the consummate sense to come through. >> are there other deeper questions being answered? are there deeper questions being asked of yourselves and your leaders and of the caucus? was this the right time for an election? >> i always go back to the st clair avenue and the jamaican that the shop owner. he said, i would have lost total respect for parliament if you had not taken down this government that was in contempt of parliament. on the principle thing, it was extraordinarily important that

this was an election that was a necessary election. you could question is the duty previous elections were not necessary, the opportunistic election of 2008 of stephen harper and the election of jack layton and stephen harper in 2006. people can second-guess all they want. most of us would have felt uncomfortable if there were two votes are content. we have to stand up for our ability to hold government to account. 36 days is not a lot of time in which to take civic literacy 101. too many canadians think that if they elect a president, they watch cnn.

if you go out on the street and talk to parliament versus government, it is mashed together in their brain. they do not understand we need to hold government to account. this is a sad thing for us going back to a majority. we will now have four years to explain to canadians how it is opposed to war. hopefully, we will get our act together. the liberal party is back in touch with the grass roots and back in touch with the kind of civic and saints domestic and citizen engagement that will allow people to become an bout -- senate and citizen engagement that will allow people to become involved. >> i heard the party prepares --

i heard the party president saying you are going to hold a leadership convention. what is it going to take to rebuild your historic lows in terms of the popular vote? >> this election has shown a lot of motivated liberals. governor dean spoke to our convention about the 50 state solution. we need 8308 solution where people, regardless of where they live, bill -- we need a 308 solution where people, regardless of where they live, believe the liberals have a prudent approach to the economy. families are working harder and harder and feel like they are staying in the same place or sliding a bit behind.

we need to engage all the people who care about things. the people working in the food banks, the people who care about the environment and about portable housing, we have to be able to explain that they should feel comfortable with that. we will listen to them and be able to harvest their good ideas and put them into our public policy. >> i am just hearing you say what you have been saying for 37 days. you had a development platform. it did not sell. people turned from the ndp. you just spent the last election saying what you just said. >> the new element that in 36 days, it is tough to do. what we have to show is a two- way accountability for its

citizens between now and the next election. we have to show that we are listening and we think differently in terms of bottom up and using the whole team as opposed to this campaign in which most of the analysis shows 70% of the media was about polling. i ran against peter kent in 2006. this is not time to discuss policy. we have got to do a better job making sure people are ready to discuss policy and the that what is on offer from each kind of government as opposed to this kind of horse race, polling superficial stuff. obviously, we ended up failing in our ability to portray

hynadians during that time, w what we were putting out was a better offer. >> one of the first orders of business in the short term or long term is to choose a new leader. i do not know what you occurred in terms of how long that might take. any names you might put forward, even yourself? >> i am not considering it. you are quite right about whether it is in the short or longer term. on wednesday, we will pay an interim leader. we want to know what that is, as the constitution says, for five months from now. the constitution says the executive has to meet within 27 days and set a date within five months to pick a new leader. now that we have got at least that years, this baby too fast.

the party -- not that we have got at least five years, that maybe too asked. it always ends up as civil war when it comes to leadership races. but also the fact that we have got to get away from this messiah complex choosing a leader. a leader can come in and ride to victory without the foundation is in place within the party. >> have you found the foundation. they are saying the leadership process has preceded the rebuilding. the party has got to rebuild. a leader comes on during a minority government. would you like to see a longer

rebuilding before the next leader comes along? >> that is what we are saying. when we went into the leadership race, i cochaired the change commission. there are a lot of good things. we crisscrossed the country. there were a lot of things that were worth it that were not implemented. we need to that the party look at that and see if there are other things we can do. it looks at the policy process. make sure members of our party cannot deal -- party do nknow te are better ideas in terms of this genuine relationship. membership should have more than its privileges.

it should have some influence. >> your colleague down the road, bob ray, thinks discussions about uniting the course is left of center or progress of course it's shouldund theerway. -- forces should be underway. >> bob has articulate it. people are talking about it anyway. we have a role as the liberal party of canada with proper values and prudent economic and compassion looking after one another. we are right on some things and left on others. we are not wedded in either of the ideologies. we have a role to play in being able to go forward with the

mandate we have been given in terms of our constitution, in terms of the true liberal values. you just have to talk to liberals in alberta. there are liberals in alberta for a good reason. they are proud to be liberals. we look at all kinds of things including electoral with form, including alternative. there are many things that are the consequence of our system that others are talking about long before we actually end up with any compensation about mergers, which most people feel is a long way off and not be optimal outcome for our party. coming together at a policy, france -- coming together at a policy conference -- there are a

lot of things the progressive party is to have in common that are worth discussing. i do not think that means governance. >> on that note, it is going to be a long process. i look forward to speaking with you again. thanks a lot. we are going to look at the new political landscape with two members from the policy press gallery. welcome to the show. i have to ask you. we have had a duty days to let the smoke cleared. i will ask you something -- we have had two days to let the smoke clear. >> i did not expect the block to be reduced to less beneficial

party status. we knew we were not going to do well. i was surprised by that particular result. i knew they were going to get reduced significantly. i do not know how many people predicted they would lose 34 seats. >> this election was unbelievable. even the defeat of the leader of the quebec party is no more. questions from media, he was surprised. he does not want anything to do with the media. that result will change dramatically. we have a federalist forces who are back in quebec. >> i get a palpable sense from the french journalists.

here is a man who was so at ease with the french media with a joke and a reallypithy line. that is going to be done. >> the budget has been reduced considerably. it will be abolished by stephen harper now that he has a majority. there are financial problems along the way. >> mia, you can weigh on something. and then what can you expect from this government? >> they do not have official party status. for a lot of canadians, some things i am hearing from the west, they are quite happy about it. they have never wanted a separatist boys in the national

parliament. they have -- a separatist b voice in the national parliament. the changes going to be huge. >> some people have seen that within the ndp, there are people who describe themselves as separatist. they have voted yes on referenda. let's get to the second question. what are you stepping from the harper majority government? -- what are you expecting from the harbor majority government? >> they will start the new session, which will be short. the budget will be put on the table in march.

people will come back in full force in september. >> harper has been promising the same budget. he may include changes to the political party financing, removing the public subsidy to political parties. >> he made some promises and discussions during the campaign and a lot of people were wondering why wasn't that in the budgets. some of the money for health care -- they said the money was in the budget, but it was not talked about anywhere. i do not expect a lot of major changes from it. the thing i am looking for is the common. the tone of the last few parliament was so negative and so nasty, we are still struggling to get over that period they have a majority now. they do not have to look over their shoulders that they are going to be defeated. this is going to change how they

behave and how they act. it will be a little less confrontational. i am skeptical. it is inbred in the people there. >> the government will ask for $2.20 billion for quebec in qe 2. that is a big chunk of money that will be added to the budget. i also expect the tories to be late in an adequate or acceptable manner. i think it was self preservation that brought them to such a tone. they are not fighting for survival for the next week. they are trying to fight for an election.

>> how about the question that could concerned the two of you. do you think there will be any change in terms of giving out information? >> if mr. harper's press conference is any indication, he will answer more questions. he answered more questions before that. it was not as controlled and structured as it was throughout the campaign. there will be a little more relaxing of that. controlling the message is how they won. >> let's talk about the liberals. a big the big question --the big question is the future of the liberals. the liberals are talking about recovering and rebuilding and new leaders. what are both of you watching for?

>> we have been pushing for 1%. they want carper to lead on an interim basis. he has got interests to promote. for about 18 months or 12 months. that means the liberal party will not have a new leader before 18 months. the liberal party is broke now. they spent about $21 million during the election. they have less money to pay that. >> i heard the party president in alluding to that. they do not want to have a real leadership race. >> this is a party that has been searching for a leader for many years now. they cannot have one immediately.

they rush into it and end up with similar problems. they need to take the time to rebuild and to look back at what they did wrong and why the voters have done this and said, we do not want you as official opposition. a lot of enough >-- soul-searching to do. >> the media analysis of the campaign showed that 70% was about the race and very little was focused on policy. their frustration was that, this was an elaborate plot form. there were platform option spelled out. they tried to articulate them. but it did not work. was it the attack ads? was it that the leader was crucified before he started? >> they were under attack for

two years by the tories. to try to fight to that within 35 days, you cannot do it. to endure a brutal attack for -- to reverse a brutal attack from two years in 35 days is impossible. the damage is the >> hon. you cannot-- -- the damage is done. >> they release their platform on the eighth. there was a lot of uptake on twitter. what you have your platform up there and it has been talked about, you move on. nothing was being produced every day was new. the media's cycle we are in now

-- you need something new. it is hard to keep the dialogue going. >> i think back to when there was another step down. he warned liberal troops about how the resources available to the conservatives to crucify him with negative ads and find them. maybe this time of route it will be jack layton and the ndp. is this a new style of politics that? >> i will always remember the day michael ignatieff took over. he said they would not due to meet what they did to my predecessor. they never responded. they probably did not have the money to respond. for two is, the airways were packed saying that michael ignatieff was an elitist who loved america more than canada.

you never heard anything from them on to give this election. it they are attacked next time, they have to respond right away. >> i agree with that. it was like somebody was trying to fight a tank with a slingshot. you cannot win a war like that. they should have put their efforts into fighting those kind of tactics. >> the liberals say we have to get away from this leader oriented politics. you have to sell your connection to people. >> that is important. you have to do that. the liberals had gotten away from that for a while. they have to get on the ground. if michael ignatieff had done that the first time he was

elected, it might have had an impact. >> on that note, there is a lot to watch. we will be watching for the new cabinet when it comes in. we are hoping he will tell the governor general the exact dates. stay tuned. thank you for coming in and sharing your thoughts. that is all the time we have. thanks for watching. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> president obama addressed 2000 troops in fort campbell, kentucky after meeting with the army helicopter pilots and navy seal commandos who executed the raid on osama bin laden's compound and killed the al qaeda leader in pakistan on sunday.

we will show you the president's comments at fort campbell, at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> michele bachmann is here and she is thinking about running for president. that is weird because i hear she was born in canada. [laughter] yes, this is how it starts. >> big deal of president obama's houseance oat the white correspondents' dinner is our most huge video. what it at our you to -channel- w. watch it at our youtube channel. >> dick couch was in the cia and he was a navy seal. the ceo john williams does not

think inflation will remain high. he says the united states has enough forward momentum to overcome high energy prices. his remarks were on wednesday by a group in los angeles. he be placed janet yellen who resigned in october of 2010 after being sworn in as vice chairman of the federal reserve board of governors. this is 50 minutes.

>> i just became president of the federal reserve bank of san francisco. one of the challenges of coming from northern california and living in the bay area for many years is, as president of the san francisco fed, which includes nine of the western states, we have seven major league baseball teams here that i am is supposed to represent. being from northern california, i have my own abuse on that. one of the growth opportunities is for me to say the old dodgers. -- go dodgers. [laughter] i am working on that. we will see how it goes. this is my first opportunity to speak about the economy and monetary policies since taking on this new role. for a central banker, communication is a centralt