that creates jobs, lowers the unemployment rate and saves employers both large and small money that they can reinvest by creating additional jobs for millions of americans. it is a path that we've been hoping to find, it's a path that we struggled to get at and now with a thank we're on it, it's a path that's delivering on its promises. so i don't believe i have any further speakers so at this time i just want to reiterate that we've been here for almost five months, nothing that has come to this floor has created jobs, communities like mine and communities like most of my colleagues represent in this body still have high unemployment, there are no jobs, we need to continue to provide unemployment insurance, we need to work to begin to create the jobs that the people of america need. so with that i'd like to yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: upped the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2011, the the gentleman is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. >> last week, of course, we were in our districts which means i was home in my beloved state of south carolina. and while the bulk of that time was in south carolina, south carolina is a small state where the deep and which tie throughout the various regions of the state that even in the course of one week, mr. speaker, i was able to go to all six congressional districts in south carolina at one point or another. mr. gowdy: south carolina is full of natural beauty from the

mountains to the beaches of our coastal region. it is home to hard-working, loyal, kind-hearted and resilient people. we have wonderful schools, research universities, highly regarded hospitals, medical centers. we have a depth and breadth throughout the state of south carolina as well as the small businesses that are the backbone of this country. south carolina is among the first state to help other states when disaster strikes. we have a rich history of fighting, sacrificing and dying for this country. we are proud and brave and we are not easily intimidated, which brings me to the national labor relations board and its recent interactions with the state of south carolina. at a time when union membership is at a historic low, unions

seek to influence this administration in a historically my fashion. at a time when this nation needs to come together and face the great challenges of our time, there are those in this administration who seek to benefit from the politics of class, generational and now regional conflict. from the secretary of health and human services, who claimed that our colleague, paul ryan's efforts to reform medicare, would cause seniors to die seniors -- sooner. it is so owe vertly political, about a colleague who has the foresight to try to save medicare. from that to the nlrb and general counsel in its efforts to intimidate the state of south carolina with threatened lawsuits and now a complaint

when a company decides to put an additional line of work in the great state of south carolina. boeing decided to build some of its new 787 dreamliners in south carolina and nearly a year, mr. speaker, after the decision was made and construction had begun and some instances had been completed, after south carolina workers received the good news that jobs were heading our way, the national labor relations board decided to file a complaint and it's important to keep in mind what is not at issue. there is no merit to the contention that boeing did not negotiate in good faith with the union over the placement of a second line of work in south carolina. no one seriously contends that. and incredibly, there is no evidence that existing jobs will move from washington state to south carolina. instead, the nlrb seeks to tell companies where it can and cannot build additional lines of work. let that sink in.

the national labor relations board seeks to tell a company where it can and cannot build additional lines of work. so be forewarned. if you build a plant or a facility in a union state there is the prospect that you will never be able to leave again if the nlrb has its way. and the law was clear and it is crystal clear, employers are permit todd make predictions on future economic circumstances so long as the circumstances are predictable. is it predictable there would be labor shortages and stopages in washington state? well, mr. speaker, there have been four strikes since 1989 in the washington state facility for boeing. all of which supports the movement of the entire 787 production line to south carolina, but that's not what boeing is doing. and i would commend, mr.

speaker, the reading of the comments by a boeing customer. said, the continued threatend work stopages are causing it to reconsider whether or not it wants to do business with boeing and yet boeing is not supposed to consider that when they decide where to build additional lines of work. indeed, make no mistake, mr. speaker, there will be two maines played in washington state for every one made in south carolina, but that is not enough for this administration. they want to control where businesses can locate, what they can make and how much of it they can make. i want you to consider, mr. speaker, the comments of the n lmp rb spokesperson, we aren't telling boeing they can't make planes in south carolina but a specific line of work, three planes a month. if they keep three planes a month in washington, there is no problem.

really? the national labor relations board is going to tell boeing how many planes it can make and in what state and what constitutes the problem and what doesn't constitute a problem. to my colleagues from the south carolina delegation who have labeled this an unprecedented act, they are entirely correct. so what appears now, mr. speaker, is that this administration and the national labor relations board will elevate the unions to the same status as the employer, that all future decisions have to be made in concert and if the unions object to a line of work that is separate and distinct, they move to a right-to-work state like south carolina, it cannot be done. mr. speaker, i see that i have been joined by my distinguished colleague from the fifth congressional district, mr. muscle vanny and i yield to mr. muscle vanny as much time as he

may consume. mr. mulvaney: thank you and thank you to my colleague, mr. gowdy. his words are well considered and well made and i think bear out the decision of the people of his district to send him to washington. this is the real chang we face together as a team here in washington and i'm proud to be a member of this team as we take on perhaps the critical issue in our day and our state when it comes to economic development and job growth. i want to do something that we aren't very good at in south carolina. i want to speak bluntly. ordinarily, we don't talk about uncomfortable thing in our state very bluntly, we are more gentlemenly, but i feel excelled to do that. i want to talk about what this says about the current administration's attitude toward business and talk very briefly

about why people, not only in south carolina, but people all over this country should be concerned with this lawsuit against boeing by the nlrb. regarding the administration's attitude towards business, i talked several times when i was running for this office with folks in my district about another issue. at that time, it was cap and trade. and i remember coming across an employer in my district who combount wouldn't be in favor but saved on but contributed significantly. and i asked them why this was, why were they doing something clearly against their self interests. and they told me if they did not get on board, they would have a visit from the e.p.a. and wasn't it much better for them to participate in the cap and trade legislation than it was to get run over and visited by the e.p.a., to have someone come down and bring down the

full regulatory authority of the government on you without any recourse whatsoever. wouldn't you want to sit at the table rather than having it dealt in your face by the regulatory arm of the administration. frightened me to death. frightened me to death that that is what we have come to in this nation. i call it to this day and i know -- this frustrates people and it is government by mafia. it really is. like walking into an office and say it would be a shame if this place burnt down tomorrow, why don't you give us money and nothing will happen you. it frightens me and disgusts me the way the government treats its own people. i cannot help but think of that example when i think of what the nmp l rmp b is doing and come to the boeing company and admit and you can read what it says, admit they done nothing wrong, admit

that boeing has done nothing but still taking the position that they have the basis for bringing a lawsuit against this company in order to do if nothing else, but to shake it down. my colleague, mr. speaker, mentioned the other shoe to drop when the nmp lrb came forward and said, listen, this could go away if boeing could build three more airplanes every single month in washington state. that's what this is about. that's what this is about. this is about using lempling and using muscle and pushing roovend a private business simply because you can and it's absolutely and positively wrong for our government to be doing this to its own citizens. that's exactly what is happening, walking into boeing and saying, it would be a real shame if we shut you down in south carolina. you can make that not happen. you have the ability to make sure this doesn't happen to you. all you have to do is agree to

produce an additional three planes in washington state. what a travesty and a complete insult what this nation stands for. what should ordinary people care about this? is this just an issue for the state of south carolina or boeing or business? absolutely not. absolutely not. this is an issue that every single working person in this country should be scared to death of, because the day that government can tell business where it can operate, which is what the nl rmp b is trying to do in this lawsuit, the day that government tells business where to operate is the day before it can tell you where to go to work. if boeing is not free to leave washington and move to south carolina, the next day, you might not be free to do the same thing. it violates everything we stand for and violates everything that makes this country exceptional.

it brings up frightening thoughts. it is wrong, mr. speaker. it must stop now. we will do everything in this delegation to prevent it from happening. and more importantly, we will be ever diligent to make sure that after this one is put to bed and this nlrb lawsuit is exposed for the fraud that it is, we will make sure it never happens in this country and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. gowdy: while you were talking in defense of freedom, not in defense of south carolina but defense of freedom and the freedom to pursue the free market, something as fundamental as that, we have been joined by our colleague from south carolina, congressman jeff duncan and i yield such time as he may consume on this issue. mr. duncan: let me thank my colleagues for taking this time to talk about an issue that -- i

cannot believe we are even having this discussion. we have seen a lot since we have been here in washington since january , but i never thought i would say the day that the nlrb and our government would sue a company over creating jobs in south carolina. i may have experienced that in another country, say the soviet union back in the 1980's, but to think that we've got a government here in america that is suing a company for making a business decision, a decision that would affect their bottom line, to go where their labor costs are cheaper, to come to a great state like south carolina and locate in a wonderful city like north charleston, where they were already operating an operation that made the fuse

ellages. this was a decision to bring the rest of the components to south carolina. assemble the complete aircraft there and you know, since they made that decision to come to south carolina, they have added an additional 200 jobs in washington. for the nlrb to say that boeing made a decision to punish a union in washington is ludicrous. it's ludicrous. you know, virginia attorney general said the nlb's action is threatening every right to work state and i agree with them. if they are successful, we aren't go to go have the conversation in this country whether a business is going to locate in a right-to-work state and the conversation will turn to a conversation about whether to locate in america or locate

that operation overseas. that ought to scare every one of us. every american that understands capitalism and understands that government doesn't create jobs, businesses do. looking at the nlrb's decision and examining recent electoral map, it's difficult to see -- it's not difficult to see, rather, a policy that clearly rewards blue states while severely punishing red ones. south carolina is a red state and we're proud that have fact. we shouldn't be punished for boeing located in south carolina. this is the second attempt at nlrb to punish south carolina. you know, right before this they decided to sue south carolina, south dakota, arizona and utah over the right to a secret ballot. back in november, mr. speaker, 80% of south carolinaans voted in a referendum that we'd like the right to a secret ballot when it comes to union

elections. that we don't want a car check method where union bosses can come to employees and say, you know, we really want to unionize here and we'd love to have your name and through fear and intimidation get them to agree to go along and unionize after a majority of those people in that business have said under intimidation usually that they would go along with the union. we'd like the right to a secret ballot that free americans can go into the voting booth, whether it's at a union or anywhere else, and cast a ballot in secret, without fear of intimidation. and go in there and cast the vote how they feel or whether they want to collective bargaining, whether they want to unionize or whether they want to come to work and negotiate with their employer for their best interest and the best interest of the company, for the best interest of the company. so nlrb said, no, south carolina, utah, south dakota, arizona, we determine how you're

going to unionize, we determine what method you're going to use and if we say that you have to use car check as a method of unionization, that's what you have to use and just because new south carolina, 80% of your voters like the right to a secret ballot, that doesn't matter, that's off the table. because nlrb is saying they have the last word. they are the only voice. and you know what? that's wrong. because it comes into a states' rights issue. the constitution i carry says that congress -- i'm going to get a little passionate on this issue because i feel nlrb's overstepped its bounds on this. it says that no power, not specifically outlined in that document as longing to the federal government nor prohibited by that document to the states and is reserved for the states and the people. it doesn't say that nlrb has the right to determine how we can unionize in south carolina or any other right to work state. i think states do have rights. and i think weave got to stand

up and a-- we've got it stand up and i applaud my colleagues for championing the constitution of the united states, championing the 10th amendment, pointing out the rightful place of the states in this country. that freely join the republic. so, after the nlrb decided to sue these four states, they came in and decided to sue a private business to. sue a business that made a business decision to affect the bottom line. shareholder value. looking after profit which others want to demonize in this country. but which made this country great. capitalists, going out and investing their hard-earned dollars, convincing others to invest their money in their stock, to grow a business, create a product that folks around the world will want to buy and folks like buying boeing product. i applaud boeing for wanting to come to south carolina to invest their billions of dollars in our

state, their idea of staying there for 100 years, their love for south carolina workers, for the climate, the probusiness climate we have in our state, the probusiness climate they have in north charleston. the effort that south carolina has to step up to the plate, to help boeing in the deal to come to south carolina. and i look forward to flying on a boeing aircraft manufactured, the dreamliner, what a great name. we're talking about a shattering of american dreams by the nlrb, suing boeing, who is chasing the american dream, but they're chasing it in the form of an airplane called the dreamliner is that not irony? i can't believe we're having this discussion but i'll tell you what, we're doing the right thing. and this congress needs to get behind defunding the nlrb's ability to sue south carolina, to sue boeing, we need to get that -- behind that. mr. gowdy, thank you for having this and i yield back. mr. gowdy: well, my colleague

from south carolina raises the second issue, doesn't he? it wasn't just the complaint against boeing, it was also the threatened litigation over south carolina having the unmitigated temerity to want to memorialize the right to a secret ballot in the constitution of our state. our voters voted to do that. to memorialize the right, something as sacred in this country as the right to secret ballot and the reward for memorializing that in our constitution was threatened litigation by the nlrb. and when our attorney general fought back the response was, well, let's see if we can settle it. and i think that's instructive because no sooner had the threatened lawsuit, the threatened litigation against boeing been announced that there's another effort to want to settle it. these are two private companies who are negotiating over an

easement. mr. lungren: will the gentleman yield? -- lundlund the gentleman yield? -- mr. duncan: will the gentleman yield? they said, we're going to do it in secret. we're going to do it in secret. they attacked the right to secret ballot, that doesn't exactly look like a good track record. have you heard about that? mr. gowdy: not only had i heard about that, i read a quote attributed to the nlrb just this week. where they're advising boeing and its council not to litigate this in the media. imagine, imagine the arrogance of telling a company not to litigate something in the media. these are not two private parties, this is a government agency taking legal action against a private company and then they advise, don't discuss this in the media and the second thing and i'd love to ask congressman mulvaney his

thoughts on this, there was a quote attributed to a senator advising the nlrb, do not share your legal strategy publicly. do not tell the other side what your legal strategy is. this is not a criminal case. this is not a civil case between two private companies. this is a government agency that is seeking to influence the business decisions of a private company and they're telling -- they're getting legal advise from a senator not to share their strategy with the other side. and with that i would recognize the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: and my question to you, mr. goudy, and to mr. speaker, would be this, -- gowdy, and to mr. speaker, would be this, why would there even be a strategy? what is this talk of strategy? that nlrb is charged with enforcing the law. there should be no strategy with that. it either violates the law or it does not. the nlrb has already said itself on more than one occasion that the statements that boeing made

do not rise to the level that's required for this litigation to proceed. they've already admitted that this is an expansion of a new business, this is a new business line, it is not the moving of a business from one place to the other. and it is -- the nlrb has already admitted that that is protected activity. so you have to wonder, what is the strategy? it raise as really good point. why are we here? why is the nlrb doing this? what does it say, mr. gowdy, and perhaps this is a he willer to -- rhetorical question, what does it say about the lawsuit that mr. duncan mentioned before regarding the right to a secret wallet ballot? what does it say about an administration in this day and age that's thank specifically attacks not only one state but several states for granting additional freedoms to its citizens? think about. that that's what we've done. that's what arizona has done. that's what other states have done. we have simply memorialized in our constitution the right that we have to a secret ballot.

this is the granting of a right. ordinarily this would be cause of great celebration. but for some reason with this administration it is not cause for celebration, it is cause for the bringing of lawsuits and litigation. and i cannot help but wonder that what that says about where we stand as a nation. mr. duncan: you have would wonder why nlrb is doing. this what is their ultimate game? i think it's to force the private industry to make a decision that government tells. that's like the government takeover. the government telling a private business what to do or not to do. you know, the american people are tired of the spending and the borrowing and the bailouts and the takeovers. we saw it with general motors, we've seen it with other businesses, we've seen a government takeover of health care and now we're seeing the government sue a private business for making a business decision to locate in south carolina. and we know because we come from the great state, we know why they wanted to locate in south carolina. we know about the work ethic.

we know about the wonderful business climate. we know about the wonderful climate period. and i know why they chose charleston. what a great location. it's not just because the air basis there, the -- close to the port. probably one of the biggest reasons. the wonderful port that we've got in charleston. the reason south carolina is great is the port of charleston. while i'm on that, let me applaud my colleagues across the building for their help in securing the money that was instead for -- necessary for deepening and widening the port of charleston. it was the right decision for the corps of engineers to make and it's the right decision for the business climate in south carolina and it's the right decision for our state. and it's going to be a perfect business example for south carolina. and for the east coast. with that i yield back. mr. gowdy: well, i would say this, to echo what both of my colleagues have already said, not only is there a tremendous natural climate and a business

climate in the state of south carolina, you will not find a group of people more appreciative for the right to work than our fellow citizens in south carolina. who desperately need the work. and thank you to boeing and every other company who has been willing to take a chance on the people of south carolina. we are not easily intimidated and what did my colleagues ask? what is the nlrb doing? why now? well, i think we touched on it earlier. union membership is at a historic low. at the same time they seek to have a historically high level of influence with this administration. mr. mulvaney, there is no legal analysis by which the nlrb can hope to prevail in this case. this is a political calculus and i would like in the few minutes we have remaining to discuss with both my colleagues the remedy that the nlrb seeks. and it's instructive, i think,

to set the chronology one more time. boeing has been manufacturing airplanes in washington state for at least two decades and during those -- since 1989 there have been four work stoppages and i read a partial quote by a customer of boeing saying that if the unions and the employers and management do not get together and stop the strikes, we are going to look somewhere else for our airplanes. so you're in a leadership position at a company and you're being advised that the work stoppage a.j.s and therefour of them are going to impact your ability to get future business, and you negotiate in good faith and there has been not one bit of evidence to suggest that boeing did not negotiate in good faith in washington state, and as our colleague, mr. mulvaney, pointed out, there's no allegation of bad faith. there's no allegation that boeing did anything wrong other than seek to move to a right to

work state. when they had planted the flag in a union state, they wanted to move a separate distinct line of work to a right to work state in south carolina. there are 2,000 more jobs in washington state than there were and the comments of the spokesperson for the nlrb are so terribly instructive. if you'll just build more planes in washington state, we'll shut up about what you did in south carolina. can you imagine that? as a 16-year prosecutor, you can imagine me saying, well, i'll excuse what you did here if it were wrong, if you'll just do this instead? and what boeing had done was really wrong, the nlrb would not be seeking to settle this and negotiate out more work for the state of washington which is exactly what they're trying to do. mr. duncan: you know, the gentleman from georgia just a few minutes ago, in the last hour, was over there talking about us not manufacturing anything in this country anymore.

talking about bringing manufacturing back. i don't know if you all heard that. and i sat there and listened and i thought about the irony there. that here we are, we have the nlrb that's suing a business who is operating in this country, who has numerous manufacturing facilities not just in washington and south carolina, who's creating a wonderful product that's all around the world. they're manufacturing it here in this country, they're creating jobs in south carolina, we are manufacturing here and so that gentleman, mr. scott from georgia, the message is clear, they are and they'll continue to do so as long as we have a probusiness economy, as long as we have a probusiness climate. and like i said earlier, if nlrb wins this suit, mr. gowdy, we're going to see decisions made about not whether to locate in a

right to work state like south carolina or utah or arizona or south dakota or even virginia or many, many others in this country, we're not going to see that argument about whether to locate in a right to work state or a union state, we're going to see truly what he was talking about, we're going to see the decision being made about whether to locate in the united states of america and put americans to work or locate in another country. that's the que going to be asked. mr. mulvaney: this is not just an attack on one company, nor is it an attack, an attack more broadly. this is a specific attack on the people of south carolina. it is. it is a specific attack on the people we represent. we live in a state that we represent a right-to-work state.

doesn't mean that unions are banned, but means you don't have to work in a union to work in south carolina. we have chosen to do that. we have come together and said this is the kind of state we want to be. we want to be a state that balances the needs of businesses and workers and don't want to make you do something that you don't want to do just to get a job. that's what we stand for. and this administration and this lawsuit is attacking that. we also chose as a state to give boeing incentives to come to south carolina. i was this the state legislature when we did that, but we said to ourselves as a state, this is such an opportunity. it is a true rare times where it is an investment. rare opportunity for us as a state not only for us but several generations. boeing has been making airplanes and will be making them for another 100 years and we gave

them the incentives. this administration is attacking that. no where does the ngrb say what would happen if they succeed that the money has given to the boeing. it is a slap in the face to the people of south carolina. you can't have a discussion up here or shouldn't have a discussion up here without talking about jobs. our people want to work. our people need to work. most hard-working, well educated, honest and ethical group of working people in this country. the boeing compings was going to give them the chance to do that in areas that would provide us to grow as a state, our wage base and skill base. think about what this means to the other opportunities in the aerospace industry alone never mind the other industries that feed it. we want to work. and this administration is going

out of its way to prevent that from happening. unfor giveable. unfoffgifble. and i have had to fight with my own administration as to whether or not these people can go to work. this is absolutely wrong. it is unforgiveable that that is what it has come to. mr. speaker, i commend the ress of my delegation and true honor to come to our state's defense which is unjustifiable attack. and i yield back. >> we saw the auto manufacturing company, bmw when it wanted to come to south carolina and transformed the state of south carolina. every now and an you have the opportunity to have a company

like boeing, a ge that cannot just transform a community, but even more importantly, transform individual family lives by giving them the debatest of all family values, a job. and mr. mulvaney is exactly right. we come from a state that has a rich and in some instances, great history. but one thing we agree on is every member of this delegation, we represent people who want to work. and when you consider the consequences of this complaint, what are the recommends? are they really going to ask boeing to dismantle the plant that is under construction in north charleston? are they going to tell boeing, you cannot manufacture thr line in this state? or are they going to do what we

really suspect what this is all about, which is negotiating strength so they can force boeing to do more work in washington state. we'll let you slide in south carolina, but you have to make it up to us in washington state. that is not the business of this administration. and i applaud my colleagues, those that are here and those that were not able to join us tonight, because we are in one accord when it comes to standing up for the people and the workers in the state of south carolina. i would yield to my colleague, mr. duncan. mr. duncan: i just have to ask myself, listening to my colleagues here, thinking about this issue, since when did america stop becoming and being the land of the free? the land of the free that we sing about all the time? did we want to say we are a free

nation or do we want to be a free nation? our freedom is under attack, guys. our freedom is under attack through this nation through the nlrb suing the state for making a business decision. but in america? in america? i can't believe we are witnessing this. it's not just nlrb, but it's e.p.a. when they deny air quality permit for a drilling plap platform in the alaska and sea where the closest impacted town is over 70 miles away, 250 people there and i have been out to a deepwater drilling platform. i have been to a production platform.

and only air impact that i have seen is the gas, where they fla rmp e and burns off the natural gas activities. using the natural gas and proponents of that side of the debate and say that, too, probably cleaner burning. e.p.a. is denying an air quality permit so we aren't able to meet america's energy needs. we have ngrb suing the state of south carolina, utah, arizona and the state of south dakota. and we have them suing a fine american company named boeing. we have the e.p.a. going after drilling, denying the air quality permits. we have them changing the air

quality standards that will affect our economic development in my district around the south carolina. this is a power grab by this administration to keep us from being free people, to keep us from being able to make business decisions and creating jobs and putting america back to work. america needs to wake up, that your freedoms are being eroded day by day. it's hard to believe that january 5, we were elected in the congress and had high optimism for changing the way washington does business and then we see this continuation of these policies, which i labeled on the campaign por, for the stenographer, por, pelosi, obama

and reid policies and they are continuing today. they are continuing today. they are out creating jobs in states like south carolina. i applaud my colleagues. and like you said, those that aren't here, those that may be taking the floor on the other side in the united states senate, those that had obligations in other places tonight that feel the way we do, that south carolina is a great state to do business. boeing made the decision to come there. they made the decision about their bottom line, about profitability, share holder value, creating the jobs, manufacturing in this country that the gentleman from georgia talked about. they are doing it and will do it in south carolina. i believe they will win the lawsuit, because it's the right

thing, american way, unconstitutional for the nlrb to be suing boeing and i believe they will win and put thousands of workers to work in south carolina and invest their money and going to be there 100 years from now. i yield back. mr. gowdy: mr. speaker, we would yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. gowdy: i move now that the house adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands

>> thank you, people of ireland.

if there's anyone out there who still thinks that ireland is a place where all things are possible, who still wonder if the dream of our ancestors are alive in our time, who still questions our capacity to restore our cells come of reinvent ourselves, and prosper, well, today is your answer. because today, on this day, the president of the united states, barack obama, and the first lady, michelle obama, is here. [cheers]

welcome, mr. president and michelle. real connection with his irish family -- today,

the 43rd president of the united states comes home. [unintelligible] started out on his long atlantic crossing -- that one day his grandson t-great would return as president of the united states. [unintelligible] millions have died, packing their hopes and dreams, step in on two ships, which for some was like stepping into space. their storyf us, --

is our story. this evening, my call is directly to those 40 million irish-americans, and while you are listening and watching in new york, new haven, san diego, , by marriage or by desire, your family is right here. [cheers] wie, your family, your irish family, are right here to welcome you, to welcome your

president home. last week queen elizabeth came to our shores and bowed to our dead,d. pride and happiness, we close the circle of our history. today, president obama, we draw another circle, one in which we tell the world of our unique ealth, that cannot be traded on the stock exchange,

because it remains intact and a live, even side are people, and hearts of the people of our country and in the transforming currency of the irish heart, imagination and soul. never give up. never give up and never say die. this has sustained us over the centuries. we pass it from mother to daughter, from father to son, in our dreams and in our imaginations. in our love for our country and in our pride of who we are, playing for what must be, a brighter and more prosperous

future. the president and his first lady are an extraordinary couple. president obama -- president obama is part of that proud future. in 1963, the 45th president of the united states -- in 1995, the 42nd president -- the 44th president is different because he does not just speak about the american dream. he is the american dream.

and that is the american dream come home. so ladies and gentlemen, let your voice be heard around the globe as i introduce the president of the indicted states, barack obama -- the president of the united states, barack obama, and the first lady, michelle obama. [cheers] >> thank you. [unintelligible] hello, ireland.

my name is barack obama -- and i come home to find the' that we lost -- the apostrophe we lost somewhere along the way. now -- some wise myers man or woman said that broke an irish is better than clever english. so here goes. i am happy to be in ireland. i am happy to be it with so many --

i want to thank mike stern larry coast -- my extraordinary coaho. for welcoming me here earlier today. thank you, lord mayor, for allowing me to tap this celebration. let me also express my condolences on the recent passing of garrick fitzgerald.

someone who believed in the power of education, someone who believed in the potential of youth, most of all someone who believed in the potential of peace and who lived to see that piece realized. most of all, thank you to the citizens of dublin and the people of ireland, for the warm and generous hospitality you have shown me and michelle. it certainly feels like 100,000. we feel very much at home. i feel even more at home after that pint that i had. i feel even warmer. in return, let me offer a

hearty greeting some of tens of millions of irish-americans who proudly trace their heritage to this small island. they say hello. i knew that i had some routes across the atlantic -- some roots across the atlantic, but until recently i could not claim that i had these root. morenow, there's no one irish than me. i want to thank the genealogists who traced my family tree right here. thank you. it turns out that people take a lot of interest in you when you are running for president.

they look into your past. they check out your place of birth. things like that. i do wish somebody had provided me all this evidence earlier because it would have come in handy back when i was first running in my hometown of chicago. because chicago is the irish capital of the midwest. a city where it was once said you could stand on some the ninth st. inherently brogue every county in ireland. naturally up politician like me -- the st. patrick's

day parade. i told them it was a deal it named - a gaelic name, but they did not believe me. after two hours, finally it was our turn and while we rode around, we smiled and waved, the city workers were right behind us cleaning up the garbage. it was a little depressing. i will bet those parade organizers are watching tv today and feeling kind of bad. this is a pretty good parade right here. [cheers] i like that. we got some bulls fans here. of course, an american does not require irish blood.

and a stand that ours is a proud, and during centuries-old relationship, and we are bound by history and friendship and shared values. that is why i have come here today, as an american president, to reaffirm those bonds of affection. [cheers] earlier today michelle and i visited my ancestral home and dropped by a local public and received a very warm welcome from all the people there, including my long lost eighth cousin henry.

henry now is affectionately known henry viii, and it was remarkable to see the small town where a young shoemaker, my great-great-grandfather, lived his early life and i will show the records of his birth. we saw home where he lived. he left during the great hunger, as so many irish did, to seek a new life in the new world. he traveled by ship to new york, where we entered himself into the record as a laborer. he married a girl from ohio.

they settled in the midwest and started the family. it is a familiar story, because it is one lived and shares by americans of all backgrounds. it is integral to our national identity. it is who we are -- a nation of but standing there i could not help but think how heartbreaking it must have been from that great, great, great grandfather of mine and so many others to watch donegal koets and single cliffs received, to leave behind all they knew in hopes of something better way over the horizon. when people like that boarded those ships, they often did so with no family, no friends, no money, nothing to sustain their

journey but faith, faith in the almighty. faith in the idea of america. faith that is a place where you could be prosperous, you could be free. you could think and talk and worship as you please. a place where you could make it if you tried. and as they worked and struggled and sacrificed and sometimes experienced great discrimination to build that better life for the next generation, they passed on that faith to their children and to their children's children. an inheritance that the great, great, great grandchildren like me still carry with them. we call it the american dream. it's the dream that carney was

attracted to when i went to america. it was the dream that drew my own father to america from a small village in africa. it was a dream we carried forward, sometimes through stormy waters, sometimes at great cost for more than two centuries. and for moin sake, i'm grateful they made those journeys because if they hadn't, you would be listening to somebody else speak right now. and for america's sake, we're grateful, so many of us, that this land took this chance as well. after all, never had a nation so small inspired so much in another. [applause]

irish signatures is on our founding documents. irish blood was spilled on our battlefields. irish sweat built our great city -- cities. our spirit is eternally refreshed by irish story and irish song, our public life by the humor and heart and dedication of servants with names like kennedy and reagan, o'neill and moynihan. so you can say there's always been a little green behind the red, white and blue. when the father of our country, george washington, needed an army it was the fierce fighting of sons that caused the british official to lament we have lost

america through the irish. and as george washington said himself, when our friendless standards were first unhurled, who were the strangers that first mustered around our staff and when it reeled in the light, who more brilliantly sustained it than erin's generous sons? when we had sewn to drive out slavery and advance the rights of man, we found common cause with your struggles against depression. frederick douglass, an escaped slave and our great abolitionist forged an unlikely friendship right here in dub wlin your great liberator daniel o'connell.

his time here, frederick douglass said, defined him not as a color, but as a man, and it strengthened the nonviolent campaign he would return home to wage. recently, some of the their descendents met here in dublin to commemorate and continue that friendship between douglass and o'connell. when abraham lincoln struggled to preserve our union, more than 100,000 irish and irish-americans joined the cause with units like the irish bra grades charging in the battle. green flags with gold hearts waving alongside our star sprangled banner. when depression gripped america, ireland sent tens of thousands of shamrocks to cheer up its

countrymen saying, may the message of erin shamrocks be joy to those who wait. and when an iron curtain fell across this continent and our way of life was challenged, it was our first irish president, our first catholic president, john f. kennedy, who made us believe 50 years ago this week that mankind could do something big and bold and ambitious as walk on the moon. he made us dream again. that is the story of america and ireland. that's the tale of our brawn and our blood side by side. in making and remaking a nation. pulling it westward and skyward and moving it forward again and again and again. and that is our task again

today. i think we all realize both of our nations faced great trials in recent years, including recessions so severe, that many of our people are still trying to fight their way out. naturally are concern turns to our families, our friends and our neighbors and some in this enormous audience are thinking about their own prospects and their own futures. those of us who are parents wonder what it will mean for our children. and young people like so many who are here today. will you see the same progress we've seen since we were your age? would you inherit futures as big and as bright as the ones we inherited? will your dreams remain alive in our time?

this nation has faced those questions before. when your land couldn't feed those who tilled it, when the boats leaving these shore held some of your brightest minds, when brother fought against brother, yours is a history frequently marked by the greatest of trials and deepest of sorrow, but yours is also a history of proud and defiant endurance, of a nation that kept alive the flame of knowledge in dark ages that overcome occupation and outlived field and triumphed over its troubles, of a resilient people who beat all of the odds. and, ireland, as trying as these times are, i know our future is still as big and as bright as our children expect it to be.

i know that because i know it is precisely in times like these, in times of great challenge, in times of great change, when we remember who we truly are, we're peoples, the irish and the americans who never stop imagining a brighter future, even in bitter times. we're people who make that future happen through hard work and through sacrifice, through investing in those things that matter most, like family and community. we remember in the words made famous by one of your greatest poets, that in dreams begin responsibility. this is a nation that met that

responsibility by choosing like your ancestors did to keep alight the flame of knowledge and invest in a world class education for your young people. and today ireland's youth and those who come back to build a new ireland are now among the best educated, most entrepreneurial in the world, and i see those young people here today, and i know that ireland will succeed. this is a nation that met its responsibilities by choosing to apply the lessons of your own past, to assume a heavier burden of responsibility on the world stage. and today people who once knew the pain of an empty stomach now feed those who hunger abroad. ireland is working hand in hand

with the united states to make sure that hungry mouths are fed around the world because we remember those times. we know what cripp ling poverty -- crippling poverty can be like and we want to make sure we're helping others. you're a people who modernized and can now stand up for those who cannot yet stand up for themselves. and this is a nation that met its responsibilities and inspired the entire world by choosing to see past the scars of violence and mistrust, to forge a lasting peace on this island. when president clinton said at this very spot 15 years ago, waging peace is risky, i think those who were involved understood the risks they were taking, but you, the irish

people, persevered, and you cast your votes and you made your voices heard for that peace, and you responded heroically when it was challenged. and you did it as president kelly has written for all of the inherent attractability of our problems, the irrepressible human i impulse to love kept nagging and nudging us towards reconciliation. whenever peace is challenged, you will have to sustain that irrepressible impulse, and america will stand by you always. [applause] america will stand by you always in your pursuit of peace.

ireland, you need to understand you have already so surpassed the world's highest hopes that what was notable about the northern ireland elections two weeks ago was that they came and went without much attention. it's not because the world has forgotten. it's because this once unlikely dream has become that most extraordinary of things -- it has become real. our dream has turned to reality because of the work of this nation. in dreams begin responsibility. embracing that responsibility, working toward it, overcoming the cynics and naysayers and those who say you can't, that's

what makes dreams real. that's what carney did when he got on that boat. and that's what so many generations of irish men and women have done here in this spectacular country. that is something we can point to and show our children, irish and american alike, that is something we can teach them as they grow up together in a new century side by side, as it has been since our beginning. this little country that inspires the biggest things, your best days are still ahead. our greatest triumph in america and ireland alike are still to come! and ireland, if anybody ever says otherwise, if anybody ever tells you that your problems are too big or your challenges are

too great, we can do something, that we shouldn't even try, think about all that we've done together. remember that whatever hardships the winner may bring, springtime sauls just around the corner. and if they keep on arguing with you, just respond with the simple, "yes, we can. yes, we can." for all of you with the character from the united states of america and the spirit of the world, thank you! and may god bless the eternal friendship between our two great nations! thank you very much, everybody! thank you, governor! thank you, ireland! [applause]

>> president obama had been scheduled to stay overnight in ireland but he left early for lon gone because of safety concerns over the ash cloud from an ice landic volcano that's moving towards europe.

in london the official state visit begins with a formal arrival ceremony at buckingham palace. later, mr. obama will visit westminster abbey and meet with david cameron and opposition leader ed miliband. tuesday the president and first lady will attend a state dinner hosted by the queen. in a few moments, former minnesota governor tim pawlenty announces he's a candidate for the nomination for president. and director jacob lew at the economic club on in washington. after that the affairs committee hears from israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu and congressional leaders. later we will hear again president obama's speech today in dublin, ireland. several live events to tell you about on our companion network c-span3 tomorrow. a senate judiciary subcommittee looks at prescription drug abruce with the heads of the white house office of drug

control policy and the drug enforcement administration. that's at 9:00 a.m. eastern. at 2:30 p.m. eastern, heads of the federal aviation administration and air traffic controllers association testify at a hearing on the safety of the air traffic control system. >> c-span's local content vehicles kick off the city's tour in tampa-st. pete this weekend with book tv events on c-span 2 including interviews with raw hide down author and cigar city author and a look at the industry with local book sellers. and american history events from st. petersburg museum of history, the benoit plane, the first commercially scheduled aircraft. and history of angola, settlement of 450 former slaves and seminole indians who fought two wars against the u.s. in the early 1800's. the l.c.v. cities tour kicks off this weekend. watch it on c-span 2 and c-span

3. >> former minnesota governor tim pawlenty has formally announced he's a read for the republican nomination for president. speaking in des moines, iowa, he said president obama's policies have failed and he would be a president who levels with the american people. this is mr. pawlenty's 14th trip to iowa since the 2008 elections. this is about 50 minutes. >> good morning. thank you all for being here. in the fall of 1983 i met tim pawlenty and i knew at that time that i had met someone extraordinary. and through our lives together and through our now more than 23 years of marriage, i have come to know well and love his family, his cousins and aunts

and uncles and brothers and sisters who, like tim, are the salt of the earth. these are folks who are from the heartland, who have a strong worth ethic and a deep love for family. and i watched him love up on and laugh with our children as they have grown, and and i have lived and breathed life with him as he had gone through his political career and watched him through the political battles with political opposition and had many moments where i thought, how in the world will he find his way out of this? but he is a man who's internal compass is set so true that he

always found a way to lead minnesotans to a better place. i had the good fortune and opportunity to be alongside him during his time as governor in many parts of the world, whether it was in china or south america , europe, or india or in a country that is particularly dear to our heart, israel. and through all of those experiences, i watched my husband weave and blend together his knowledge and his expertise with his ability to form amazing, lasting relationships. and it's tempting, i presume, to assume his spouse of so many years would stand here and be supportive simply from the heart

and, of course, i'm supportive from the heart but all that i know and all that i have witnessed about my husband has me supporting him in equal measure with my heart and my head. i am completely certain that he is the best person for the job. my husband is a man of great character, courage, good judgment, wisdom, discernment, and he has the experience to be the next president of the united states. he is a man who speaks truth to power but always with great fullness of grace.

ladies and gentlemen, my husband, governor pawlenty. [applause] >> thank you. thanks, honey, for the tremendous remarks, grace and kind remarks and for your love and support for all of these years. after serving eight years as minnesota's governor, i was very much looking sford to life with mary and our two daughters in the midwestern home that we love. but with mary's encouragement and wise counsel, we came to a different conclusion, and that's what brings me here today with this announcement. i'm tim pawlenty, and i'm

running for president of the united states. [applause] we live in the greatest country the world has ever known but as we all know, america's in big trouble. and it won't get fixed if we keep going down the same path. if we want a new and better direction, we're going to need a new and better president. president obama's policies have failed. but more than that, he won't even tell us the truth about what it's really going to take to get out of this mess that we're in. i can stand here and tell you we can solve america's debt crisis

without making any tough choices. we heard those kinds of promises before the last three years and we know where that's gotten us -- fluffy promises of hope and change. they don't buy our groceries, make our mortgage payments, put gas in our car or pay for our children's school clothes or other needs. so in my campaign, i'm going to take a different approach. i'm going to tell you the truth, and the truth is, washington, d.c.'s broken. our country's gone broke and the pain of the recent recession will pale in comparison to what's coming if we don't get spending in washington, d.c. under control. president obama doesn't have an economic plan. president obama doesn't have an economic plan. he just has a campaign plan and the united states of america deserves much, much better.

president obama promised that spending $800 billion on a pork-filled stimulus bill would keep unemployment under 8%. he promised that bailouts for well connected businesses were a good deal for the country. he promised that a federal takeover of health care would keep costs under control and as hard as it is to believe, he even promised he would cut the debt in half during his form term as president. but the truth is, since president obama took office, the massive numbers of spending decisions that he's made, the debt has gone through the roof, americans can't find jobs and we're $4 trillion deeper in debt and his health care plan is an unmitigated disaster for our country. we've tried president obama's

way and his way has failed. three years into his term, we're no longer just running out of money, we're running out of time. it's time for new leadership. it's time for a new approach and it's time for america's president and any one who wants to be president to look you in the eye and tell you the truth, so here it is, government money isn't free. you and i either pay for it in taxes or our children pay for it in debt. the reforms we need are not in the billions, they're in the trillions of dollars. and the cuts we need to markse the cuts we must make, can't just be to somebody else's programs. the changes history is calling on america today to make can't be shouldered by people who are richer than us or poorer than us but by us, too. politicians are often afraid if

they're too honest, they may lose an election. i'm afraid that in 2012, if we're not honest enough, we may lose our country. [applause] if we want to grow our economy, we need to shrink our government. if we want to create jobs, we need to encourage job creators. if we want our children to be free to pursue their dreams, we can't shackle them with our debts. this is time for the truth. that's why later this week i'm going to new york city and i'm going to tell wall street that if i'm elected, the day of bailouts, carveouts, handouts are over. [applause] no more subsidies, no more special treatment, no more

fannie and freddie, no more tarp and no more too big to feel. success in our economy once again must be determined by the ingenuity of competing businesses and the judgment of the marketplace period. but there's more. tomorrow i'm also going to florida to tell both young people and seniors the truth about our entitlement programs, that they're on an unsustainable path and that inaction is no longer an option. our national debt, combined with obama care, have placed social security, medicare and medicaid in real peril. i'm going to tell young people the truth and over time, and for them ownly, we have to gradually raise the social security retirement age. and i'm also going to tell the truth to wealthy seniors, we're going to have to means test social security's annual cost of living adjustment. medicare must also be reformed.

we're going to do it with pay-for-performance incentives that reward good doctors and wise consumers. we need to block grant medicaid to the states. their innovative ideas and approaches closest to the patients are not only going to solve problems, they're going to save money. and this week i will also be in washington, d.c. [applause] in washington, d.c., i'm going to remind the federal bureaucrats that governments exist to serve its citizens and not its employees. and the truth is people being paid by the taxpayers shouldn't get a better deal than the taxpayers themselves. that means freezing federal salaries, transitioning federal

plowy benefits and downsizing the federal workforce as it retires. it means paying public employees for results, not just seniority and it means from the capital to the classroom and everywhere in between, we're going to make public employees more accountable and their pay and benefits more in line with the rest of the taxpayers in this country. and in the private sector it means no card check, not now or not ever. and it means no more taxpayer bailouts just because you made big campaign contributions to politicians or just because you made a lot of money and give it away to people who are special interests who are trying to influence our government. we also need to make sure that the national labor relations board understands that never again will an american company be told where they can and can't

do business. [applause] i'm here today to tell iowans the truth, too. america's facing a crushing debt crisis, the likes of which we have never seen before. we need to cut spending and we need to cut it big time. the hard truth is there are no longer any sacred programs. the truth about federal energy subsidies, including federal subsidies for ethanol, is that they have to be phased out. we need to do it gradually, we need to do it fairly, but we need to do it. i'm not some out-of-touch politician from some other part of the country. i served two terms as governor of an agriculture state. i fully understand and respect the critical role farming plays in our economy and our society. i've strongly supported ethanol in various ways over the years

and i still believe in the promise of renewable fuels, both for our economy and for our national security. but even in minnesota, when we face fiscal challenges, we reduced ethanol subsidies. that's where we are now in washington but on a much, much larger scale. it's not only ethanol. we need to change our approach to subsidies in all industries. it can't be done overnight. the industry made large investments and it wouldn't be fair to pull the plug out from under them immediately but we must face the truth, that if we want to invite more competition, more investment and more innovation into industry, we need to get the government out. [applause] we also need to get the government out of the business of handing out special favors and special deals. the free market, not freebies from politicians, should decide a company's success so as part

of a larger reform, we need to phase out all subsidies across all sources of energy and all industries, including ethanol. we simply can't afford them anymore. now smrks people are going to be upset about what i'm saying. conventional wisdom says you can't talk about ethanol in iowa or social security in florida or financial reform on wall street but someone has to say it. someone has to finally stand up and level with the american people. someone has to lead. i will. [applause] when times get tough, there's a temptation among many people to try to turn americans against one another. some try to fan the flames of envy and resentment as a way to

deflect attention to their own spoments and we particularly see this from politicians. but that's not good enough anymore. our problems demand and our children deserve much more from us this time. no president deserves to win an election by dividing the american people, picking winners and losers, protecting his own party spending and cutting only the other guys' programs, pitting classes in ethnicities and generations against each other. the truth is, we're all in this together. so we need to work together to get out of this mess. all unite our party and i'll unite our nation because to solve a $14 trillion problem, we're going to need 300 million people. [applause] leadership in a time of crisis isn't about telling people what you think they want to hear. it's about telling the truth.

president barack obama refuses to do that. he has a cynical and simple plan, frepped there's no crisis and then attack those who try to stand up and attempt to solve it. in washington, they may call that smart politics. but i'm not from washington. i grew up in minnesota. i glue up in the hard working blue collar town of saul-st. paul whfment i was 16 years old, my mom passed away of ovarian cancer. a while later my dad lost his job for a while. in a situation like that, you see some things, and you learn some things. at a young age i learned the value of leaning into nage in god and in chall nchinging times -- challenging time and in all times. i saw the value of a loving family that rallied around each other in a time of crisis.

i learned the value of hard work and the responsibility for doing my part. i learned that education was a ticket to the opportunity. and i learned the value of a job and a paycheck. i had a chance it work in a grocery store for about seven years. i was a union remember. i was proud to earn some money to help pay for school costs and to help make ends meet. the values i learned are america's values. i know the american dream because i've lived it. i'm running for president to keep that dream alive. the first step towards restoring america's promise is to elect a president who keeps his promises to america. how do i know the conservative values and principles can rescue our economy and reform our government? because in minnesota, for the last eight years, they already

have. i love my state. but let's face it, it's one of the most liberal states in the country. minnesota's big government legacy presented me with the same types of problems barack obama found in the nation's capital but my approach and my results were very different. when i became governor, minnesota's two-year budget had been increasing for an average of 21% every two years for over 40 years. during my eight years as governor, that changed dramatically. i passed a budget that actually reduced state spending in real terms for the first time in 150 years in my state. for decades before i got elected, governors tried to get minnesota out of the top ten highest state in taxes. that was their goal. i actually did it. minnesota also faced health care costs that were spiraling out of control. does that sound familiar?

i know how to do health care reform right. i've done it at the state level. no mandates, no takeovers and it's the opposite of obama care. i took on the public employee unions before it was popular to do it. for example, our government bus drivers had benefited similar to those that are breaking budgets in california, illinois and all over europe. i wanted to bring those benefits in line. the union refused and went on strike. it became one of the longest strikes in the history of the country, transit strikes. people picketted my house. the media trashed me. and the buses didn't move. but neither did we. and on the 45th day of the strike, the union came back to the table and the taxpayers won. [applause]

today we have a transit system that gives commuters a ride without taking the taxpayers for a ride. i stood up to the teachers' union and established one of the first statewide system for performance pay for teachers in the country and i pointed new conservative justices to the supreme court. they understand that justices are supposed to rule according to the law, not the preferences of their party, and you know something about that here in iowa. in minnesota and washington, the issues were the same -- taxes, spending, health care, unions and the courts. but in washington, barack obama has consistently stood for higher taxes, more spending, more government, more powerful special interest, and for less individual freedom. in minnesota i cut taxes, cut

spending, instituted health care choice and performance pay for teachers, reform union benefits and appointed constitutional conservatives to the supreme court. that's how you lead a liberal state in a conservative directionthe problems we face in are severe. but if we could move minnesota in a common-sense direction we can do it everywhere, even in washington, d.c. it will not be easy. it is not supposed to be. this is america. we do not do easy. bally forge was not easy. normandy was not easy. winning the cold war was not easy. if prosperity were easy, everyone around the world would be prosperous. if security were easy, everybody would be secure. if freedom were easy, everybody

would be free. they are not. but americans are because our founding fathers and generations before us chose to be and insisted and risked everything so that we could be. that is their legacy. now it is our challenge. we are up for it. in 2008, president obama told us he would change america. he has. in 2012, we will change america again, this time it will be for the better. [applause] thank you. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. thank you for coming today. i appreciate it.

thank you. thanks. good to see you. i know the sun is hot but the last part of the program, i want to do a town hall meeting. now was the time to the engage you formally and ask questions and see what is and your mind and make sure you get your questions asked about our campaign for the future of the country. there is a microphone to your right. >> you touched on this in your speech but i feel like i have to ask this because i rehearsed it. could you expand on, i want to be reassured. this is the one thing that is holding me back through the barrier. you and i have talked several times.

could you explain your, how would you go about to recommend a supreme court judge? gonna be specific. would you recommend more of a scalia? >> yes. [laughter] as with all of these issues, i think the republican candidates are going to roll through town and say i'm for cutting taxes, reducing spending, i am for school and reform. i am for market-based health care reform. i am pro-life. i am pro-traditional marriage. the words of the various candidates are going to sound similar. there will be some differences. the real question for the people of iowa is not who says the words, but who gets it done. who has the record to back these things up.

i have done it as an executive in government. i have pointed members to the member -- minnesota supreme court. i am proud of that. i want to make sure the people i put on the court respected this fact, that they should interpret it by the law as written and not substitute or insert their personal or political views. if the law is unclear they should be able to say, this is unclear, it should be clarified by the legislature. not take it into their own hands on the back of a napkin. [applause] >> my name is norman. . i am a legal immigrant to this country. when i came here, i had to sign all kinds of paper saying i was not going to commit a crime and

that should i do so, i could be deported. i wonder what your thoughts are on the illegal immigrants we have to continue to bombard our borders who are committing crimes by getting here. there are millions of people outside of america who are trying to come here illegally so that they can be registered. they are eager to work and make themselves part of our american life. i wonder what your feelings are. >> thank you for the question. thank you for being here. we appreciate that. [applause] on these issues it is important to start with first principles. we are a nation that has a founding principle as the rule of law. we need to make sure that our

culture and society respects that principle. if you have large segments of the population ignoring or violating the law, it not only represents a legal violation but it begins to corrode the culture. you cannot have a country that says the rule of law is so important and then have people flagrantly violating the law. go back to new york city three rudy guiliani. if the rule is anything goes, pretty soon it does. we need to make sure we have the law observed and respected. let's start with the positive. this is a great nation. we have benefited greatly from immigration but it needs to be legal and reasonable. [applause]

that is not what we have now. but let's start with those principles. the rule of law and value immigration. i have done not -- i have had a lot of experience. we have to enforce the border. when president bush asked the governors to volunteer people to go to the border, minn. volunteered. we sent troops to the arizona border to help reinforce the border until they could get more people and equipment. it worked. we need a better system to check and verify whether people are here legally or not. it needs to be quick and accurate and not burdensome on employers. i issued an order that said if you want to do business with the state, you have to use the system. it is not perfect but it is

getting better. it is more accurate than the old paper-based system. i wanted expiration dates on driver's license. we have people who overstay their legal status. it is hard to discern once they mix in. i proposed to make the visa expiration date. we got it done via an administrative order. we're one of the only states to have that. those are some thoughts. i have participated in these issues as a leader. we have made good progress in helping the effort as well. >> thank you, governor. god bless you and good luck. jimmy carter is no longer the worst president of the country. [laughter] what push it over the top for me was president obama throwing

israel under the bus. i am not real clear if it is an issue that is in the middle of my heart, how do you speak to that? what will you do when you become president to ensure israel continues to exist as god promised those people. ? >> a great set of comments. mary alluded to this. we have spent a lot of time as a family talking about this and reaffirming our commitment. but me start with the end in mind. dish -- there should be no deeds -- [applause] we stand shoulder to shoulder with them. they share our values, including

the dow use of human rights and democracy and the free and fair flow of information. mary and i led a mission there years ago. in terms of the 2012 candidates with the exception of john huntsman, i have been to iraq five times. i have been to afghanistan three times visiting troops and giving encouragement as commander in chief of the national guard. i have been too close of zero -- to kosovo and china and many other things. we have been to israel, kuwait, jordan, turkey. we need to make sure that the president of united states, the commander in chief, understands an important principle, when you're dealing with belize, and they understand strength, not bullies.

-- not weakness. the words matter. when he said, for a president to say, we will move forward with a palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, let sense of all kinds of messaging not only to the enemies of israel but the message that there is a crevice between the united states and israel. that is dangerous for them and for our national security. it is dangerous for america. it is misguided at a level that is almost unimaginable. i want to assure you that if i'm given the opportunity and responsibility to lead this nation, america will stand shoulder to shoulder with israel. [applause]

>> health care is expensive. it increases on a daily basis. as the leader of this nation, what would you do to reduce the cost of chronic disease? >> that is a great question. you should use some spf, by the way. [laughter] it is a question related to health care and chronic disease. most of you know there are a few conditions and health care consume most of the money. they are important conditions ca. they include cancer, heart disease, and a few other conditions. a lot of reform needs to be done by one of the most powerful is this, when people have a chronic condition that they need to care for, it is in their best

interest to get them to the places that provide the best care. there are huge differences. if you have a chronic condition and the cost, if you go to the best place for your care, people do not know that. if you think about how hard it is to find out rankings or measures of quality in health care providers, information about what it costs, it is most difficult. we did this in minnesota. we say to providers, we will pay you more if you have better outcomes and results. we also want to incentivize consumers as patients to get to the best places. we want to say, you can go to your like, but if you go to a place that is higher quality, we will pay you more. we will get to a rebate check. what that does is get people

better care and it saves money for them and for us. to give you one example, we told arrested employees to go where they like for their health care plan. but if he picks a minute -- somewhere that is bad or high cost, you will pay more. 80% migrated to more efficient and higher quality plans. the premiums have been at below market. there is some powerful examples of this. if you up type 1 diabetes and you do not treat it or you do not get the best care, it can lead to dangerous situations. it can lead to amputation, organ failure, it is not good for the patient. it is expensive to take care of once it reaches that level of a problem. the better path is to make sure we have at mayo clinic-level to

incentivize them and their providers to use the best practices in the world and pay them more if they get better outcomes. it will save us money. people will be healthier. we will have a better system. in the back there with the american t-shirt. >> i was wondering, what are your plans to do away with the deficit or to handle our economic crisis? >> i should comment on your t- shirt. there is a group in iowa that is going to be a big part of the caucus called a strong america now. it is being led by business person for making more government faster, lighter, more affordable, more technology savvy. we used it in minnesota.

it works. i want to be the first presidential candidate to sign up for the initiative. [applause] >> it was the first thing they gave me hope that our country can make it fiscally. >> i want to get mary to get for our daughters so they can get the beds made faster, get the grass mowed quicker, the whole deal. on the larger issue, the deficit. let me be blunt. the number one responsibility of the government his national security. we have to stay focused on that. after that, if we do not fit the deficit under control, it will take down our country. i am running for president because i want to fix the deficit and get the economy growing again. [applause] looked at federal

spending or where the money goes, red being non- discretionary, interest on the debt, a few retirement programs, that part is over the halfway line. at the rate of growth, it will be over the 3/4 line. the rest is almost all the offense. this is what i said in the speech. i will say it again now. we have to look the american people in the eye and say there is no way out of this unless we're willing to reform entitlement programs and the other spending programs. it is not going to be easy. if we are not willing to say it, and we cannot get the country to do it, we are wasting our time. this is going to be one of the last chances. if you set aside the political nonsense, and look at a mathematically, it tips over pretty hard pretty soon. we do not have 20 years or 10

years. this is the time. i know politician say this is the one that is going to determine the future of the country. look at the numbers and you will see that is true. president obama will not tackle this. he does not have the courage to do it. he does not have the political abilities. i will. you will hear about that when we go to florida. >> we have time for one more question. >> i will do one more but on the entitlements, we have to look folks in the eye and say the retirement age for the next generation is going to have to go up. we'll have to say, i do not like means testing, but we're at the point where people who are wealthy are not going to get their annual cost-of-living adjustment. people who are poor will. those two things can go a long

way toward solving the social security problem. on medicare, we have a 1950 system that pays providers based on volumes of services and regional cost history. we did not want to measure the system and pay for volume in the past. we want to measure the system on whether people are getting better. whether their outcomes are improving. we want to introduce competition into the market and not have the be a mystery as to what the quality measurements are. i think we should give medicare to the state. shut off the autopilot feature. and then block grant of the whole thing to the states and let the laboratories of democracy compete and provide that service. we will go way in the back.

>> as a high-school student in the morning, -- des moines, i have seen the worst and best of our education system. can you tell us what you did in minnesota to help improve education and what you would do as president to approve across the country? >> that is great. we compete in a lot of things. one of those is to has the highest act scores. it goes back and forth but lately we have been doing well. we have another great statistics. act scores are highest in the country. some of the highest graduation rates in the country. some of the highest college attainder rates. nape scores that are highest. math and science, we were approaching 20th in the world.

we moved all the way to fifth or sixth recently. you might say, that sounds pretty good. overall, they are. however, that is only true if you look at the average. if you look at the results for children who live in areas of disadvantaged or who come from challenging situations like broken homes or neighborhoods that are disadvantaged, the results are awful. they have been awful for 30 years. we need courageous education reform. most of this is a state and local issue. it is important that we lead voice to it so we can mobilize and raise awareness. here are a couple of ideas. we know the most important factor of how it children -- tab is going to do in school is their parents. we want to do everything we can to encourage and get people in golf -- involved in parenting

their children. we know that many parents struggle to do that. we want to encourage them with our word and policies. there is a lot of wonderful community and charity organizations to try to help with that. we know the second most important factor is the quality and effectiveness of their teachers. who goes into teaching? the minimum requirements we have for who we let into teach, what they've learned, is a rigorous? once they are teaching, do we track and make sure they are producing good results? if not, can we develop and support them? if they do not improve, can we remove them? that is not our current system. it features paying people for

seniority, making it impossible to discipline or remove a teacher in a public school. that teacher reform movement need to happen. if you have a good teacher for your primary grades, the likelihood of you doing well is strong. if you're unlucky to have a teacher that is not effective, even for a couple years in grade school, your results are not very good. the likelihood of you catching up is not very strong. we need to do something else. we need to break open the monopoly, the 1940's one-size- fits-all monopoly that is our public education system. i do not like things that are top down, government run monopolies envisioned in the 1950's run by. -- bureaucrats. that is one thing if you're fortunate enough to have -- if

you have resources, and you say you like your school, i am going to opt out, that is great if you have resources. a lot of families do not. they are trapped in this system. if you want to see one of the saddest things you will see, when you watch a "waiting for superman," it is about the state of public education. one of the children it follows is this young hispanic girl. it highlights how she and her mom were working so hard to keep her focused on her school, putting incredible time and energy. her hope is she might get a lottery number to go to one of the charter schools to escapers cool because it is so bad. she is just a little girl. she is hoping and doing her

homework. they're taking buses that public transit. finally the day of the lottery comes. the ball comes down the chute to see who gets to go to the school. her number did not get called. by the end of the movie, we were so mad. our hair was standing up on the back of the neck. we knew we needed to go fight. we should not have a country where a little girl who was doing her part of the bargain asked to have her future hinge on whether she can escape our own-, ridiculous, a monopoly school system. [applause] i am for school choice in all forms. the people want to say in the government's ", that is great. it is your choice. if you want to have a public auction, great.

if you want to go to a private school, that is great. if you want to have home school, fabulous. if you want to have online learning, great. we do not live in a monopoly. we live in an ipad world where people get what they want with freedom. or they wanted as fast as they wanted. the government needs to catch up or get out of the way. we are moving on. that is the world today. [applause] i want to thank you for coming. i was going to apologize for the sun but after being in minnesota with a lot of wet weather, it feels good to me. i hope it feels good to you. i'm excited about this race. i hope all of you continue to support our efforts and know that we will be back here many times. let's go get the country back on track. thank you very much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> white house budget director jake up lew. after that, is really prime

minister and congressional leaders. later, president obama's speech in ireland. then we will hear from tim pawlenty and his announcement that he is a candidate for president. on "washington journal," we will talk about the deficit with mike lee of utah, and member of the economic committee. and an oregon democrat and member of the budget committee. also the legal affairs reporter will take your questions about congressional did -- debate about extending the anti- terrorism law known as the patriots back. it is live on c-span every day at 7:00 eastern. >> no one succeeds in life by themselves. he must be willing to lean on others, to listen to others, and love others. >> watch commencement speeches

on c-span. search more than 800 past speeches from politicians, authors, and other world leaders and more. online at par video library where you can watch every event we have covered from 1987 through today. >> jacob lew spoke. he is one of the negotiators in budget talks between the white house and congress on reducing the deficit. this is 50 minutes. coverage here on c who is the director of the office of management and budget. jack is somebody i've known for about 35 years, i guess, because

i knew him when he was a relatively young staff person on capitol hill. jack is a native of new york. graduate of harvard college. after he graduated from harvard college, he came down to work on capitol hill, working for tip o'neil, and worked on his staff for about eight years, rose up to be the head of development, head of policy planning for tip o'neil. after about eight years with the speaker, he left to come pracce law in washington with vaness, feldman and curtis, practiced law for five years, and then came into the clinton administration, where he originally worked in the white house as special assistant to the president on certain policy areas including americorps. then went to the office of budget where he rose up to deputy director of omb to the director of omb and served from

1998 to dwun as the director of umb. during that period of time, the united states government had the largest budget surplus in our entire history. [ applause ] duri his last year the u.s. government had a surplus of $230 billion. and we have never beat that since, and may not. [ laughter ] after he left the administration, the clinton administration, he went to nyu, whe he was vice president for operations of nyu and also taught at nyu. later joined city corpand became the coo of its alternative investment management business, and then at the beginning of the obama administration came in as deputy secretary of state for operations and management.

and then he took the position recently of being the director of omb again. so he's the only person in history who has held that job twice. so, jack, my first question is the obvious one. if you went from hing the highest budget surplus in history and a record not likely to be topped any time soon, what made you think it would be a good idea to come back and be the head of omb again and preside over very large deficits? >> thanks for having me here tonight, david. [ laughter ] i like challenges. and this is certainly a challenge. when the president asks you to take a job, that you had before, your instinctive answer is why would i want to do it again. and when the president makes a case that he needs you because he needs someone with experience to hit the ground running, it's hard to say no. >> how many times did he have to

have ask you? >> that's between me and the president. >>o what's the principle difference between being the head before and now? how has the job changed other than th obvious surplus this year? >> obviously leaving after three years of surplus, which did not happeny accident. we had a long period of time focused on deficit reduction and proved that you could eliminate a deficit and turn a surplus. but leaving after three years of surplus, coming back with a deficit larger than any we ever imagined. i projected a surplus of $5 trillion over the next ten years when i left. when i ce back there was a deficit projection of $10 trillion over the next ten years. it can't get much more different than that. a number of things have changed. apart from the dminimensions ofe

budget problem. part of it is the change being experienced throughout the economy. information flows much more quickly. technology made it so there's instantaneous analysis and conveyance of information, which actually takes a process that was always a very stressful and have high stakes process, and made it even more so. because there's this constant flow of information. >> let me ask you, can you contrast how president clinton dealt with the head of omb with president obama? did clinton get into the budget issues and does obama get into the budget issues? how much interaction do you have with the president on budget appeals? >> well, budget appeals are kind of a narrow part of the interaction you have with the president as budget director. it's kind of one part of the year. i would say that in both cases i considered it a mark of some success to keep the number of appeals to a small number. in fact, very few, if any. the truth is if the president

conveys to the cabinet that the shape of the challenge is the same as the shape of the challenge that the omb director is describing, then it gets to a question of, you know, there a meaningful appeal. >> does anybody go around you and say the omb director is terrible and i have a better position on this? >> i would say there are occasions when cabinet members want to be heard. i've been privileged to work for two presidents who support their own. >> so this year under the budget you proposed, the projected deficit for fy12 is what number? >> we projected at one point $6 trillion. estimates are now coming in lower than that. closer to 1.4. either way it's a large number. so $1.4 trillion deficit. so the tax revenues are roughly

$2.6 trillion? >> so we're borrowing about 40% of the budget? >> it is a record deficit. and it's the reason why there's a bipartisan consensus in washington that we need t focus on the budget in a serious way. if you look at the size of the deficit right now, itoesn't tell the story of how we got there. having left te years ago with a huge surplus. decisions were made on policy grounds, tax cuts and new benefits like prescription drug benefits that weren't paid for. and that essentially eliminated the surpluses. then there were wars that wsht paid for an an economic decline that had two impacts on the deficits. onis it drove down revenues. less growth means less income, less taxes.

and it also required very bstantial interventions because without stimulus, we wouldn't experience the recovery we're now experiencin the net result when i came back on the scene was a deficit that was bigger than one could have ever imagined. ten years ago. >> when you left government before, there was a concern that we would pay off all the government debt and there would be no treasury bills for which government bills could be measured. >> almost nalmost. >> your proposal was to cut out $4 trillion spending over 12 years. >> our proposal was $4 trillion of deficit reduction, 1 trillion of revenue and 1 trillion of saved interest. >> if you do that, if you got everything you want, you're still adding $10 trillion to the deficit over that ten-year

period of time. if we have $14 trillion of debt and you add another $10 trillion in the next ten years, how are we better off? >> when you're talking about numbers that are this large it takes a long time to dig yourself out of the hole. the first is stabilizing as a percentage of the economy. we get to the point where debt stops growing as a percentage of gdp. if our proposal were adopted, obviously there's not a process of parliamentary government here, so we know it won't be adopted in every detail that we proposed, it would bring the deficit down to roughly 2.5% of gdp, which would accomplish the goal by 2015 and lower by the end of thedecade. i think that if we look in that range of $4 trillion save gsz over the next 10 to 12 years and really accomplish it, we can get the deficit to the point where we're looking out and instead of

seeing the debt growing ultimately to 100% of gdp, we stabilize it, and then you can make additional, you know, policy decisions to bring it down in the long term. you have to take the first very important step. we call it a down payment. i think a down payment understate what is it really is. it's critically important. and we need to take the action now. it's not something we suld wait two or three years to do. >> at the end of the last congress in the lame duck session, the tax cuts wre extended, so called bush tax cuts were extended. that added 1 or $2 trillion to the $800 billion. and why would you, as the omb director, support that? wouldn't that just add a lot of the deficit? why not just eliminate those cuts? >> in a very sensitive moment in terms of economic transition. we are no longer in recession. but we're in a recovery that is not something that we can just take for granted.

in decembe had there been no tax bill, what we would have seen on january 1st was a tax increase right at the time when you were seeing job creation and economic growth beginning to settle in. we feared, and i think we feared correctly that were that to happen, we could have had a double dip. it would have been terrible for the economy. would have been terrible for fiscal policy. one of the engines we need to get out of the deficit hole is economic growth. without economic growth you can't cut your way out of the problem. one of the causes was the economic decline. i think that the bance in the tax bill in december is one that did a lot to stimulate the economy. there's a payroll tax holiday. there's an extension of refundable tax credits for peopleending their ki to college and for the earned income tax credit. you know, there was an extension of unemployment insurance benefits. these things had immediate stimulativeffects. we knead to secret of the fact that we did not support the idea

of extending the tax cuts at the higher bracket. it was a compromise to do it for two years. where one side said it should be done at the end of two years and we should go back to the tax breaks in the 1990s. wh we had the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in our history. so we think the tax rates were highly consistent with stable growth. the other side would like to see them made permanent. we're going to have a chance to have that debate. last december was not the time to throw the gears into reverse in the economy. that's what we would have faced in an honorable compromise. >> the president's decision when thecampaign was -- he didn't want tax increases for people below $250,000 and to protect the middle class, but people who make $250,000 d above are only 2% of the population. the middle class presumably is

$1,000 or something like that. if you want to protect the middle class, why would you not reduce or increase taxes on people above 100,000. 250 is well above the middle class. >> i think that if you look at where the middle class lies, you'll get a lot of different ek pla nations. we've had people argue that we drew the line too low. if you look at the tax brackets, 250 is the dividing line between the top bracket and the bracket below it. we said it was not necessary to raise taxes, to keep it in the top tax bracket. also by accomplishing zlr 4 billion of deficit reduction we showed you don't need to raise taxes on people below $250,000. so we're obviously a long ways off from get iting a bipartisan agreement for the future tax break of the country.

we made itlear that shared sacrifice mean people cky enough to be in the top tax brak have to bear part of the burden. the cuts we're mang on the spending side fall disproportionately on people below that. so it's not a question of who are good people and who are bad people. the president was quite careful when he made his remarks six weeks ago at george washington university to make it clear that this was a question about everything being on the table so that we have the kinds of choices that can be balanced, and peopleucky enough to be in the tax bracket don't complain thatuch about their tax rates. >> when people talk about a budget cut, do they really mean a cut below what the increase is going to be or a real cut? right now, for example, when you talk about budget cuts, are you talking about cuts below what the current spending is or below what it would otherwise grow to? >> forifferent purposes you talk about it neither way. wh we look at projected

deficits are, projected deficits are based on projected growth, not current levels going forward. so there's an assumption on social security and medicare. there are asujss about more people being eligible. any changes you make give you deficit reduction. >> if somebody represents say a business interest and they want to come to see you, can they call up and lobby? how do people influence you? >> i have a schedule full from 7:00 in the morning to 10:00 at night. so a lot of people see me. i meet with groups more than with individuals. but i will meet with people who have serious issues to raise. my frustration is that your time

is so filled up with internal meetings and things that take up 80% of the day that sometimes you feel that you're in a ka coop and you have to struggle to hear things that aren't just the sa people that you talk to in those meetings that you really must be part of. >> the con gregs budget office have projections of dwef sieficd rates. whose are more accurate? >> all projections have risk of error. when i was at omb the last time my errors were always underperforming. so reality was better than i projected. i haven't had a track record yet, so i can't speak after just six months. you look at economic projections and theyo drive these numbers in a very important way. we're pretty close. we all gravitate around mainstream kind of centrist blue

chip economics. flst sometimes one factor or another where there's a principle difference. i'll give you an example. our asujs about long-term growth is that this recession, the recovery from it, will ultimately return us to the same level of potential gdp that we had before the recession. that's been the experience and recovery from every previous recession, including they assume it's a permanent loss of potential in the economy. theirs are within the mainstream as well. we don't know today who will be right. our view is if you make the right policy, the united states is always returned, and we don't think that anybody about this recession should make us bet on the opposite. so that's a principle difference. i'm happy to debate it. you know, this year wre a little below them in some

things. so over time it kind of evens out. >> what are your projections now of the unemployment rate of say november of next year? >> well, i don't remember the year-to-yearnemployment projections or any other year-to-year projections. we show it trending down. we show growth trending up. >> you think you can get below 8%? >> we obviously would like to get it as low as we possibly can. every day we worry about the unemployment rate. >> last me a budget deal was cut that led to the budget surplus. what was the key to getting that deal done? do you see the elements of a similar deal this time? >> if you look at what was the environment that we were in

then. in some ways it was less likely than now. there was a process of building up relationships over a period of many months made it possible for us to explore what was in our common interest. but i don't think there was an impending sense of crisis. it was a sense that it was the right thing to do. and it was a very good thing that we did it. i think right now we're in a situation where you know, the whole world is watching to see will wbe able to get our fiscal house in order? i don't think that the tax bill you asked about earlier caused eyebrows to go up in the world economic community. it takes a few years for things

to kick in. if we want fiscal con stsolidat to hit when it really shuld, waiting until 2013 means waiting unti2015 or 2016. when you look at what came o a few weeks ago, fundameally it's an economic document. the united states with a aaa credit rating. as a political analysis they said we're afraid no action is taken now. if no action is taken now and put off until 2013, we're worried it will get beyond the point when action needs to be taken. i'm not saying that's a reason for us to act today versus six moptds or a year from now. it reflects a real concern that the political environment in washington could stand in the way. one thing that is very promising in the conversations that are going on now, you know, the vice president is lding -- >> are you involved in those? >> i am involved in those. there's a shared sense of

purpose in those conversations. you look at everyone came in with the same definition of the problem. we all said we need to do something $4 trillion roughly. $4 trillion of deficit reduction is something we agree on. we're now engag in a process where i think there is a lot of trust being built up so that you can discuss serious options. there's a need to act. i won't be easier six or neighbor months than it is from now. i'm not withstanding the difficulty of the problems optimistic. >> when do you think a resolution of the biden-led discussions will be made public? >> well, i think we're now because of all the scheduling complexities going into what's essentially the third week of

discussions. we've been meeting at blair house. tomorrow the meet willing have to be moved. we have a foreign visitor staying in blair house. the prime minister of israel is staying in blair house. >> okay. and where will you go now? >> we will find other very appropriate accommodations. if you have the fannie mae and fr freddie mac on top of that. still pretty large? >> it is large. but if it stabilizes it will, i think be possible for us to send a reassurance we will be out of it.

it takes a ng time to build down accumulated debt. in the 1990s we just worked our way out of the deficits built u up in world war ii. i don't think that we can realistically think that you can take deficit this large and eliminate it in one negotiation or one cycle. you can arrest it in terms of driving it forward. >> the defense budget is roughly $800 billion a year or something like that? >> if you count the regular defense budget plus the special appropriations for what were called contingency operations. >> so z$800 billion. do you see a need to reduce that dramatically to get to where you need to go? >> the president proposed we look for savings in every part of the budget.

in the secity part of the budget he said that we had been successful. secretary gates has been successful over the last two years making roughly $400 billion of saving sin the defense buet. he said we can do that again. we can get another $400 billions of saving sin the security area. it will require a strategic review. to do it again will be difficult just looking for low hanging frutd. we're now, you know, secretary had comments on this last week, launching the streejategic revi. we're looking closely together on it. >> what's the best way to win an argument with you? what argument do you like the best? >> i tend to believe in facts d clear analysis. if you start with facts and clear analysis and less emotion, it tends to work better with me. arguments that begin with, you know, your staff messed this up aren't the best way to start the conversation.

weinberger would show him with pictures of soldiers and show a lot of military soldiers. it got president reagan interested in it. does anybody come in with pictures and illustrations that are really effective? >> nowadays everybody has decks. everything is powerpoint and slides. you can make a clear argument with no pieces of paper. you can make it with a memo or slide slides. >> erg is small when it's yours and large when it's someone else's. >> does he go through appeals in the cabinet room? >> the challenge wen dealing with something as vast as a federal budge is to find the right level of detail to share with the bt o a regular basis.

and you knw, having that work for two presidents, every president has their own style. i was privileged to work for two presidents smarter than i am. so it's not har to get them into a serious discussion. i fnd if you go department by department on what has changed and what is potentially controversial, it can direct the change to warrant presidential attention. the danger of trying to take evy issue is you don't have enough time, and you don't end up using the president's time and the things that really are decisions that that he would

want to give clear and separate direction. any member of the cabinet could make the issue. >> and do members of congress lobby you as well? and what's the most effective argument they can make? the more on the level arguments are, you know, what the importance of something is, what the facts are, what the case is, there's no reason to be embarrassed, to say that something is important as the economy in your district. you know, if it's rooted in a serious analysis, you know, to say that a project has more benefits than cost when you look at the analysis, you know, to say that even though to say it

tends to be a work. >> do you envision any chance of a debt bill not getting passed? >> no. i think that having now been t to a number of meetings with a number of leaders but there's a shared understanding. it's just unthinkableor uso default on the u.s. -- >> we'll wait to the last possib majority. >> i can't argue that. things rarely happen early in washington. there's very strong reason to do it sooner rather than later. you know, we saw in the certain days