trillion. they have room to provide stimulus now i still get into the $1.50 trillion ceiling. conceptually, what could see how that would happen. >> you mention that partisanship predominates in washington now. is this really unusual historically? has there been a time that partisanship has been so high? is there a chance that it can be reduced enough to reach a reasonable agreement? no, no, yes, no. [laughter] >> this is not historically abnormal.

we get a moderate center that disintegrates the time it today we look and awful lot like the late 19th century. it takes awhile to dissipate and it takes a while to reproduce a political center. it will not happen in the short term. when else will happen? you have a financial crisis what we saw in the tarp episode, the 600-point drop in the dow. either external shock matters in a locked -- short of that, why would the parties want to give

up their key issues that define their differences before an election? in 2011, we're pretty far away from an election. it means that even in an odd year, they still want to brandish their brand names. >> we keep talking about how a crisis would give them serious to a better fiscal policy. but in 2007, supposedly housing market totally collapsed and the stock market: collapse and the fed let out all the stops and the interest-rate went to 0% and the economy still collapse and we had the worst economy since the 1930's. and there was a worldwide fiscal crisis emerging.

would that not be enough to get congress to be serious about this? [laughter] if you had said that in 2007, we would have said, yes, of course. that is a ridiculous question. half of that would have been enough. yet here we are and they're still bickering about this stuff the way they are. i think it points to what sarah was saying. these are really strong issues that are embedded in the politics and it will be hard to get movement. >> i think these answers come back the arrangement of the current debate. what you have is general agreement crossing party lines just among the panel. would you need a short-term stimulus and deficit reduction. yet the political process is unable, in the face of maybe

things not quite as bad as they were two years or three years ago but still pretty lousy, to strike that deal. >> audience, if you have not turned this out, the politics in this panel is represented by the order of seating. [laughter] ok, so let's say they will get a deal. they have to get a deal. they can change the law and all that, but let's say that day -- less say they get $1.20 trillion. so that leaves $1.10 trillion, maybe half of the way to where most people think we need to go and it still will not stabilize the debt. so then what happens? what is next? >> next comes an election. >> yes, but after the election,

we still have the problem that i laid out. what does congress do then? then they will be buddies and cut a deal? >> if you go back even to a year ago, people were saying i do not like your deficit plan. i like the way things are now better in terms of the they do not want tax increases. what has changed that is a big thing that has been positive is that people are not talking about your deficit plan versus my deficit plan. in 2008, the candidates ran on who had the bigger tax cuts. that was a ridiculous debate to be having at the time. some of us said so, but the political system was not at -- was not ready to have that conversation in 2012, the question will be on how to fix this. therefore, whoever gets elected

will not be able to claim that they have a mandate on how to fix this. maybe we have divided government and they have to come together and be adults and compromise and that is another set of issues. but the real difference is that it seems likely to me at least, as a non expert political scientist, that the upcoming election will be about these issues so that whoever wins actually could do something about them after the election. >> so after poll after poll after poll, the american people can say do not tax you and do not tax me and tax the guy behind the tree and cannot take might benefits and here's what you should do to solve the deficit and it is not possible. [laughter] >> i have never noticed where the campaigns are were candid its offer pain and suffering and sacrifice.

this one will be similar to the other ones and the candidates will try to talk about other things. there is the possibility that the electorate will want to hear about the deficit-reduction plan. i would notpray, but a goo bet the rent money on it. >> you are right that 2012 is more about tax cuts and spending and, ron, you are right that nothing will happen. >> i hate to be right about that. here is an interesting question. as far as i can tell, this vote on the debt ceiling, in the past, there had been some gains here and there. but it had been nothing like now. we will have a debt ceiling vote after the presidential election within a few months. often, after that, will we go

through this every single time? there will be an attempt to really do something important substantively about the deficit on debt ceiling votes? >> there is a widespread perception, right or wrong, i do not know, but president obama was convinced that, if the debt ceiling were not increased, the situation would be utterly catastrophic. as president, he could not countenance allowing that to happen during his watch and he would do whatever was necessary in order to avoid it. if that interpretation is correct -- whether or not it is correct -- but if the next person who faces this choice has the same view that is attributed to obama, then the party that is willing to allow the debt ceiling to expire has

essentially complete power over the agenda. that is one interpretation of how this whole process play out -- played out. for that reason, it is very important for whoever is sitting in the white house, should this occur again, to take one of two hardline positions. one is extreme and probable given our tradition which is that there should be no debt ceiling. congress in effect of both the debt when it votes taxes and expenditures. we are done with it. that would be the right outcome, mind you. but if that is not to be the outcome, if we were to retain a debt ceiling, then it is vitally important that the next time this happens the president is willing to stand up to those who asked for concessions that he or she regard as unacceptable. >> which is to say that the

president should be willing to go off the cliff hand-in-hand with those dastardly republicans. >> you said that it, i did not. >> when the budget vote was also a vote on the debt ceiling, there was not a separate vote. those were very peaceful, wonderful years. [laughter] i think, however, because people who have a very strong feeling have seen what a powerful vehicle the debt ceiling is, we will see it subjected to many more of these kinds of things. gramm-rudman was on the debt ceiling. we will probably soon more and more of this before it slows down. maybe when sarah texas into another cycle of kinder and

gentler times in the congress, we will get over it. in the meantime, i subscribe to henry's theory, the one that he described, that the default is not a great thing for the republic and should be avoided at all costs. >> i do not want to equate the preaching of the debt ceiling with the shutdown of the faa, but i will point you can see what happens when congress goes on vacation. putting that off for six months putting scorn that congress could actually throw people out of work and then go off. >> and some people may miss that. that is an interesting point. you're talking about the faa thing. >> when you take agencies or debt ceilings are the federal budget hostage, in order to leverage your influence over the

final policy outcomes, this is what happens. in the faa do, which had many temporary authorizations -- the last one expert in the middle of july -- and commerce went on vacation after the deficit -- and congress went on vacation after the deficit deal they would not keep the faa workers and construction projects going. >> this is a fight between micah and somebody on the finance committee. rockefeller, yes, thank you. they could not reach agreement. some of 100,000 or so will lose their jobs and who cares about that? it turned out, with a recession and everything, a lot of people did care and there was a lot of pressure on congress.

they still do not know how this is. they reached an agreement because of public pressure. that is what we do not have in this situation, the public saying to a certain thing, except do not cut my benefits, right? >> it will not tamper these parties to take things hostage. but it may temper them the desire to jump off the bridge. >> i would like to reach agreement on something because callers almost never reach agreement on stuff. we have been nice political diversity appear. you may be recovering politician, but i noticed that you still have a lot of political instinct. can you imagining that the power that this weapon, the vote on the debt ceiling, revealed in this episode is that this is like having a huge bazooka. but the politicians will leave it lying on the table the next time around?

this will be a permanent feature of our political system. >> id is not a bazooka. it is a nuclear bomb. [laughter] >> does anybody disagree? >> that will be true for both sides. the discussion about whether the president could simply raise the debt limit by fiat because of the 14th amendment, that will play out more. the notion that there are things that the treasury can do to extend the debt limit, you can be certain they will be more aggressive. i agree. it has totally changed. it is not definitive about what will actually happen. >> but democrats and republicans could both use this weapon.

>> the republicans finally electing a president and having the democrats putting the lyndon bill in thellseto election. >> ok, questions. the whole thing should require less than a minute. >> to really quick questions, technical procedural. do they not have to find a staff director for the super committee? how much does that -- how much does the ease of that signify how well the committee will belong? there is an aspect of this bill were the debt ceiling can be conditioned upon the archive of the united states sending forward to the state's ratification of a balanced budget.

are there any constitutional concerns with that in the way there was with the balanced budget? >> wait to specific. >> you pointed to having to come up with an agreement. there are too many guys on the committee to let this become a .tumbling block cleare i would be interested to see if they can come with some neutral bottle. i am not quite sure follow the balanced budget question. >> the archivist of the state's ratification passed a balanced

budget amendment, which seems to be a legislative executive branch, and a 20 that issue. >> i think we need a constitutional and procedural expert. i suspect they follow the precedent on how the action gets sent to the states. >> up here in the front. >> i am douglas hopkins. can someone eliminate for me why people think that caps and triggers will have any impact upon the budget operation? as has been pointed out here, the medicare cuts for years have gone along with katz and triggers an have had no affect whatsoever. >> the most cynical among us should answer this question. [laughter]

>> i would defer to build. >> i do not know of any effective cap centers that have been applied to medicare. it is true that once congress votes a cap or any financial provision, it cannot bind future congresses that may wake up some morning and say that that was a really stupid idea and they will pass another law saying the existinging any wil law or provisions, we will do x, y, and see. so they can get around it. i suppose the dock fix is a good example. i think, in this case, the promises are getting a little harder to get around, particularly with respect of this super committee.

i believe it will not been possible -- will not be possible for them to find at least find 1.2 trillion dollars -- $1.20 trillion and submitting it to the congress. i do not think the congress will dairymaid on its promise to itself. but i maybe -- will not renig on its promise to itself. but i may be wrong. >> there are those who were serious about the cut and they would fight. i can imagine the republican caucus going through the same kind of stuff that just happen because they are driven by tea party kind of republicans. i think that is a new element.

do you agree? >> first, and to the question for from the floor. -- question from the floor. you can vote for caps. it will appear as if you have done something. whether or not they are allowed to take effect in the future, you can go to the next election have been taking are telling the electorate that you have taken something hard and fast. i felt myself more cynical, to my surprise. i think the prospects of getting a full $1.20 trillion agreed to buy the super committee are not good. there will be a smaller list of cuts of some kind that will be agreed to. when one gets to trying to do

the full menu, the committee will hang up and split on partisan lines. you might end up with $300 00 billion in cuts.on the sequester them plays out over years. in my opening remarks, i made the comment to which i return that i think it is quite likely that congress cannot bind future congresses and might well, as suggested by the limit on fees for positions under medicare, find that come 2015 that the prospect of these cuts were just too unattractive and they decide

then to reverse the decision. there will be no procedural limit. it can be filibustered. the president could veto it. we do not know how it will all play out. it seems to me that complete failure of the committee may not be probable. but i think complete success in reaching its targets is equally improbable. >> that is an interesting question about why we think discretionary caps might work. i am not thinking that we should think they will work perfectly. i look at all of these caps as sort of sand in the gears, some being more uncomfortable and awkward to change than others. the medicare spending -- the medicare cuts that never happened -- let me give you a political economy or campaign story -- a campaign

contributions jury. the medicare cuts, every year, there are the sustainable growth rates that are supposed to be written and they are overridden by congress. these are direct lobbying efforts enacted every year by the doctors to get paid under medicare to make sure thescsuree scr thing gets overridden. there is a much more diffuse lobbying effort to get those caps raised. the argument might be that we need more of the existing cap, but we're not asking you to raise the cap. you can think of the very specific group on one end of the spectrum, that caps will be kind

of in the middle. what would be most likely to happen is that there is a spending cap coupled with the notion that, if spending went higher, it would have to be covered with higher taxes. it would make it more difficult to change. i would give you a little bit more likelihood that the discretionary spending caps work than the medicare caps would work. but i agree that all of them are kind of iffy. >> there is one lobbying group called the defense department. there will be out there. i think there will be a formidable foe. >> the better improve their effectiveness. they're taking it in the chin right now. >> they certainly are. the second thing is that the

foxes rule has been in effect for about a decade. they were allowed to work early on when the adjustments were very small. it was when they got really big that the set of the facts -- the budget enforcement act of 1990, caps were enacted for a the domestic discretionary and defense. most caps were followed for about five years. bayh allowed the groundwork for some of the good years that we enjoyed under the clinton administration. in previous years on discretionary spending, the caps work just fine. i think medicare would be harder and we will just have to see what comes out. i do not think this committee, the super committee, will foss'

much with medicare. >> right. >> will then have a lot of restrictions. they cannot do much. here on the left. >> on the one hand, congress has been decried for the timing of debt reduction to the debt limit. on the other hand, what i hear from the panel is that it is a good thing we're starting to have this conversation for the first time. if he did not have this linkage, we probably would not have it. president obama first said send me a clean debt limit. what is the grade that would come down on that? a minus? [laughter] >> of the real question is what difference does it make that s&p downgraded. >> they actually went so far as

to mention in their written version of the thing the ugliness of the politics involved. if you had a clean debt ceiling, you would not have that ugliness. we would have passed for another six months or six years. who knows? >> i am a student at dartmouth college. do you ever think that we can never go back to the pay-as-you- go approach of the 1990's? >> say it again. >> pay-go of the 1990's? is that ever possible again? >> if we ever get the eventual grand bargain -- >> pay-go will be part of the grand bargain just as the discretion in caps are. >> the few budget gimmickry is that have worked for -- yes, they would probably working in some way.

>> i guess i differ in some way. the republicans brought back their own version of pay go. you had to cut spending. you could not do it through new revenues. in part, the caps work in 1998. caps work because the cold war was winding down and there is less pressure. we see the revenues in 1993 and the economy burning in the mid-'90s. you have these procedures and the economic context around it. whether you see that replicated -- >> pay-go did work someone for a

while. it had a good reputation. it is easy to think that congress would use it again. but if congress wants to put do something, they will do it anyway. they will overcome anything. let's go to the back. a couple more questions. >> thank you. it seems to me that there were at least a couple balls bouncing around the court. if you could help us make sense of them, it would be good. i have in mind the upcoming decision about fyi 2012 budget which begins fiscal year 2012 which is october 1. then we have the expiration of tax cuts in 2012, as well as the extension of the unemployment benefits and the cut in the

payroll tax for employees. could you comment on how you think all those things will play into the work and the debate of the committee and how those issues -- >> someone talk about who you expect the budget -- how you would expect the budget process to go for 2012. >> much like you saw in 2011, a tle.hog russelwras it will come out of the house at a very low level, a big war with the senate. it will be a pretty well stripped down cr and probably handle began just before they vote on the super committees bill.

we probably will be voting on that c.r. in the next year as well. , but no different than we have handled 2011. >> not to be a dead horse, it depends in part on the baseline. [laughter] >> the dead horse is dead. you killed it, bill. >> it only described what congress had to do on that one vote. so that suchard joint-select committee can propose $1.25 billion in cuts from whatever they decide. and congress can vote those things up or down and say they pass them. nothing is stopping congress from coming back the next day and reinstating the $1.50

trillion in deficit measures. there is no cap on universal behavior. it only says that on tuesday you have to cut the deficit by $1.50 trillion and on monday, you can do whatever you want. i would guess that if there is a grand bargain they come up with, it will include something about what to do with the bush tax cuts. if there's not, then the committee will lead to anything with them and leave it to be decided after the debt deal. >> one more question all the way in the back. >> thank you. speaking of binding future congresses, looming in the background is the balanced budget amendment. my question is three parts.

one, if you think it passes, what erasion would be that will likely pass. thirdly, will the debate over painful spending cuts that the super committee has to go through will be over whether it will pass? >> if you answer the first question with a no, the other two are reairrelevant. so i will answer no. >> sarah, what will it take to pass a constitutional -- i do not think it is needed. the democrats politically decided it is off the table and the democrats have staked their party name on it. >> that does not look like it will work. even if it did, there are still lots of her roles beyond that.

thank you very much, audience. let me tell you before you leave that we will have other events in this series where we will deal with the budget and the issues. keep tuning in. thank you for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> it is a country fraught with corruption, natural disasters,

and islamic extremists. >> what was shocking to me and many people in pakistan is that these assassinations were welcome, were congratulated by many pakistanis. these are not terrorists, not al qaeda, net taliban, but ordinary pakistanis who feel that their religion is threatened, that the country is becoming too secular, that the islamic values are under attack, and that blasphemy, which is anything that insults the profit or islam, is something to be defended with their life. >> pamela constable tonight on c-span is q&a. >> monday, on washington journal, a fact check on some of the 2012 presidential candidates. after that, susan glasser of

foreign policy magazine on the july and august series on the collapse of the soviet union and its relevance in today's time. and then a look at how medicare has changed over the past 45 years. that is live at 7:00 a.m. here on c-span. >> monday on c-span 2, a discussion on early education and the head start program. we will hear the article of their -- the author of a recent article on the early education program. hosted by the brookings institution, the discussion gets underway live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. next, the state of homeland security since 9/11. we hear from former and the current home and security, this is almost an hour. >> thank you very much. it is great to join you again.

i want to thank the sponsors of the event. i want to thank the chamber for giving us an opportunity to reflect a little bit on where we were, what we have done, and where we need to go. that is the purpose of this engagement today and i'm very privileged to be a part of this. i am looking forward to the discussion of the panelists. i think it is really important that we continue the discussion of what we have experienced and learned and can still learn from the events of september 11, 2001. i appreciate this up to 82 share some brief opening thoughts with all of you. i certainly look forward to secretary in a potano's comments today and the insights of our panel. -- secretary napolitano's

comments today and the insights of our panel. everyone remembers where they were when 9/11 happened. you remember when president kennedy was assassinated, when we walked on the moon, when challenger exploded, martin luther king was assassinated. there are seminal events in this country that are indelibly marked in our hearts and our minds. september 10, 2001, terrorism was viewed as a rather unseemly part of the world. but we were a superpower. we were in this unequal the economy, enjoying the standard of living unlike any other generation or any other country has ever enjoyed. it was absolutely unimaginable that a small group of individuals with limited funding, regardless of the intensity of their hatred could conceive and ultimately execute

an attack that could result in a catastrophic loss of life and economic dislocation and in hundreds of billions of dollars. the attacks of 9/11 left the country stunned and in grief. if you think about the last 10 years, one thing we have demonstrated to ourselves and to the rest of the world is our own undeniable resiliency. we went from knees bent in prayer to the formation of a plan to make our country safer and more secure and we have become stronger and more secure. in a decade's time, we have strengthened our intelligence assets and partnered with allies and friends. we captured and killed terrorists and destroyed safe havens in afghanistan and around the globe. we established a new department, homeland security, over 180,000

people. it would be nice if the secretary the potano and her successors could report -- secretary napolitano and her successors could report to fewer committees. we had an eye toward the safekeeping for our liberties, our constitution and reo is thought it was important to maintain the integrity of the american grand. we improved response capabilities and established layers of securities. we designed a new entry system for those international passengers arriving to visit or to do work, become students in the united states. one of the things we do today,

however, is recognize that, back then as we do now, we need to recognize the private sector as a very important part of our security solution. after 9/11, as a cover man -- as a country, not just the government, we had to do things better. i truly believe this. homeland security is a federal department. it is not the exclusive province or work of the federal government. it is an agency of the federal government. she extraordinary people work there. it is really the work of an entire country, of an entire nation. the very premise of a national mission involves an understanding that everything we do must be shared effort and shared responsibility. in national mission means an integrated mission. we all know that figures

imbedded in most of the private sector -- the business community, the private-sector hold the key stake in the production and transfer of goods to all our nation's national security routes. seaports, borders, skies overhead -- the very backbone of the country is subject to destruction, it whether it is the designed a man or mother nature. goodink we have done a grea job at coordinating our efforts, not a great job. but a good job. we need to be more involved in the planning stages, not less. more involved in the response and recovery stages, not less. border security, cyber

security, critical infrastructure protection wherever you go -- you will find yourself in need of technical partnership with the public sector and the private sector. right after 9/11, president bush called me and and we fade in the oval office today. he asked me to stay a little bit later and he told me that we had to do something different at our borders with their friends in canada and mexico free ratcheted it up dramatically but we slow down congress. i remember going to general motors and mich., assembly plant. they ordered their seats when they put the chassis on the front seat of their assembly line. the seats were made in canada put a computer chip on the seats, throw it in the truck, taken across the bridge and through the tunnel. one of the last things on the

assembly to be inserted on the chassis are the seats. everything else is done. is an eight-hour process. what happens if the trucks on those seats are stuck in the tunnel because we bumped up security? nothing happens. it does not have to be a zero sum game. you can enhance security and improve the economic interaction which is central to the united states in the 21st century. the economy is global. our economic future is tied to our ability to connect and sustain economic relationships with our friends north and south along with the rest of the world. along with that injured dependency comes more vulnerability. when we look at the borders, we have to say how we can enhance security and improved commerce, improve the connection. there are a lot of cryptanalyst

year, but i want to point out one of my friends who work with the chamber of commerce. the nice thing about being secretary is that you can -- i do not like to say give orders -- that you set some goals. i said we ought to be able to improve throughput in detroit by 25%. ok. to do it. al and ralph said, okay, here is a classic example where you need partnership. the companies that are interdependent, mostly the supply of goods, work together. customs and protection agreed to change and alter the delivery

schedule. my goal was 25% with very little money, but with the kind of partnerships i am talking about, improved throughput by 55%. it did not take a lot of money paid into cooperation, communication, and thinking in a different way than they had historically about delivering schedules and manpower at the border. that is the kind of partnership that i am talking about. it is not a zero sum game. our economy and our security are inseparable. we need to think about that at all times in the future if we want to be an a-stone economy. our future is tied to our economic and activity to the rest of the world. we have to make sure we understand that we can enhance security without interfering with economic relationships. that is critically important to

our future. having said that, we need to understand that the threat remains strong and continues to change. we have afforded some attacks. we admit publicly that we have fortunate that some others have simply failed. look is not a strategy. as we close 1 boehner billy, we should anticipate that terrorists will adapt and seek out another. it is a multi generational threat and a war. for that reason, we must all do security as an ongoing process, not an end point. one of the challenges i believe we have is remind ourselves, even with the dead of been laid and, even with a picture of a success -- death of osama bin laden, even with extraordinary success around the globe,

dismantling the al qaeda structure that still excess -- if i look back at the past 10 years, if there was one word or group of words that i do not necessarily want to change but we did fellini to talk about is the war on terror. terror is -- we definitely need to talk about is the war on terror. terror is a tactic. it is a war against a belief system. hatred, and -- an ideology of hatred, and evil ideology. it was observed one time that n exile a man, but

not an idea. you can kill a man, but not an idea. you can bring some of been laid in to justice, but the idea of that ideology, that belief system, as long as it has appealed to even the smallest number of individuals within the broader muslim community of 1 billion plus, the global scourged of terrorism will be with us. we are safer. we are more secure. but the threat remains. on september 12, 2001, we were grieving and we had a sense of unity and an aggressive state of the termination. every day, more people are working together to find security solutions and identifiable their abilities. and every day, we get a little further away from the tragedy. we have to be willing to look over our shoulders from town to

time and be mindful that terrorists do not rest and neither can we. i dare say probably everybody in this room is wearing a wristwatch. we wear watches. terrorists have time. think about that. they are much more patient than we are. we will be at this for a while. we should do with it. we have dealt with it. even though we are more secure, the threat remains. you cannot underestimate the appeal of their belief system and their willingness to be .atient an much work remains to be done. we have straight information sharing among family and friends.

there was a lot of criticism directed at the department of homeland security at the time. i came to the defense of secretary napolitano and i was justified in doing so. homeland security is a consumer information. it does not take a lot of intelligence. it relies on the law enforcement community to share that information. the fact of the matter remains that this individual's father had walked into the department of state and said i believe my son has been radicalized, becoming a terrorist. by the way, in yemen, the intelligence community knows exactly was going on there and who is leading the terrorist groups over there. people wondered how it could get on the airplane could it was because of the state department

never told the department of homeland security to yank his visa it is not perfect. no institute of government is perfect. it can only act on information given to it. i think the information-sharing process is good. i dare say, from my conversations with a lot of people around this country, it probably could get a little better. we need to create a culture of intelligence sharing where everyone feels empowered to hit the send button to share that list. we're trying to go from the cold war culture of the need to know to the 21st century culture of need to share. we're halfway there, 60% there, but we're not all the way there. how long have we been talking about interoperable communications for our first responders? i think it is a national

disgrace. i'm here to tell you. it is simply unbelievable, in my mind, that on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, knowing what transpired at the twin towers, knowing the inability of these men and women who rushed to save the lives of other americans and other international visitors and citizens were unable to communicate. and the 9/11 commission, shared by two great americans, the highest priority of the 9/11 commission was let's build and interoperable communication system for our first response lawyers -- our first responders, and we still have not done it. if i am little agitated, you can write it down. we have the capability and the technology. but we do not have the political

courage and focus for trying to help these men and women who we celebrate with speeches. if we are really that concerned, you better get on a fast-track. we will like it done before the 10th anniversary. but i hate to think that the 11th anniversary will come and go without finally building a platform, a foundation, so that these men and women have that interoperable communication system. by the way, think about the kinds of investments we have made and can make it a aftermath of 9/11 to generally improve the quality of life and the safety entity of americans generally. you can build these systems in response to 9/11. it transpired in many instances before 9/11. that one was the more catastrophic and horrific. but some accident out there,

from mother nature -- you talked with people who have just gone through a hurricane. it would improve the safety and security of this country and enhance the ability to help our fellow citizens, either in response to terrorist incidents, and whether catastrophe, or what have you. two of the hijackers came in on lawful vises and they overstate them we said you had to build on entry system. i'd ask a couple of my team members -- i announced it in public. i said we would not only build a system, but we will get it done

on time. we have been doing it now for over six years. we have a record of everybody coming into this country by commercial aviation. i cannot tell you today how many are here who have overstayed their visas. by the time they congress stepped up and gave the secretary of may and by the time the airlines cooperate, we built the exit system and made a lot progress. we still have a lot of work to do. you can imagine several million visitors are the past couple of years -- you think anybody has overstayed their visas? do you know where they are? do you know what they're doing? it would be easier to set all the vulnerabilities we have yet to address and the 9/11 recommendations we have yet to

meet. but achieving these goals requires the navigation of a fed will system where urgency does not come easily when politics, budget, and bureaucracy are involved. we still have more work to do. do not get me wrong. i think we have made enormous progress in the past several years. we are endlessly resilience. but we have much left to pay attention to and have left to do. we cannot expect that government can create a fail-safe risk free environment. it does not mean that we must treat every person as a potential terrorist or that every possible scenario must be explored. burress will be ever present and can never completely eliminated. they must be managed. i tip my hat to john mcchrystal

and secretary of potano. finally, at our airports, where we have -- secretary napolitano. finally, at our airports, where we have frequent fliers. we have a process to let them go through in a separate way. i have been screened i do not know how many times. i do not mind. i get a chance to talk with those people at the tsa. we need to get into the mindset of managing the risk. manage the risk. priorities have to be set. we have to bounce how much security is enough for our fiscal -- we have to balance how much security is enough for our fiscal realities as well. do we spend billions defended commercial airlines against shoulder fire missiles or do you invest in nuclear detection

technology? which one do you think is more important? which the brisket is more important? do you appropriate the money to do the exit system or do we give more money to the states? do you choose among adding more layers of security and chemical sites or do you dress a different security risk at mass transit? do you channel investments into health care or education? there are fiscal realities you have to deal with. one of the only ways you can do with it is prioritizing the risk in a world that understand you cannot eliminate it. you have to manage it. as we all know, the needs and wants are limited -- limitless. the resources are not. i have been in government most of my life. as a congressman or a governor,

nobody ever walked into my office to lobby for less. we had too much money last year, we will take a 5% cut. the fact of the matter is, with the fiscal realities we have today, we have to be more focused and more surgical and more thoughtful about the risk, the most immediate and guess we must protect and those that we -- this reality requires that we work together to manage the risk together by sharing the responsibility, sharing talent, and share resources across all sectors and industries with significant expertise to the responsibility is great and very complex -- expertise. the responsibility is great and very complex. there is certainly a way.

know what we have been through and could go through again -- we know what we have been through and what we could go through again. we are certainly far better prepared. whether working in the private sector or raising families and communities across this country. we have plenty of leaders in this room. i am proud to be associated with you. i am reminded from time to time that americans do not live in fear. it is not our nature. we live in freedom and we will continue to work together to make sure that nobody takes that freedom away. i thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts with you this morning. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] i will break with protocol. this is not on your agenda. i a couple of things to share with you -- i have a couple of things to share with you.

in the 10 years since 9/11, there have been a lot of changes in this country. we learned a lot about the threats we face, the terrorists we face. mother nature has thrown some pretty tough things at us. we are smarter, more secure, and safer. he had made a lot of partnerships. we have had a lot of people -- we have made a lot of partnerships. we have had people moving in and out of the homeland security department. with all of the constant changes, there are certain things that have been constant. there have been a small group of individuals there from day one. and you have been -- ann, you have been one of those individuals. you have been there from the very beginning, starting with the national governors' association. you brought those experiences and talents to the chamber. you have worked with my friends,

with fema. i is nice when you get ann, -- thought you ought to note that, since september 11, 2001, a constant part of the homeland security family has been ann beauchesne. ann, thank you very much -- thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for that introduction. governor ridge, it is always a pleasure and an honor to be with you. i think that the three of us who have served as secretaries of homeland security, governor ridge, secretary chertoff, and

myself -- we share a special bond. in terms of the multi-mission aspect of the department and building the department, even as we deal with everything from natural disasters to terrorism to other sorts of man-caused disasters. we run the gamut. we have multiple missions. it is now the third-largest department of the federal government, the department of homeland security. governor ridge -- secretary ridge, thank you very much for your service to the nation in this regard. i think a shout-out is required. [applause] would also led to thank the chamber of commerce for inviting me back -- like to thank the

chamber of commerce for inviting me back. going back to my time as the governor of arizona, continuing now at dhs, i have always believed that we can achieve our goals more quickly and more efficiently when the public and private sectors work together. nowhere is this more important in this day and age than when we must keep our nation, our citizens, our businesses safe from a variety of threats. we must do so in a fiscally- constrained environment. we must work together. homeland security means that every part of our society must play its role to make our nation more secure and more resilient. by resilient, what i mean is to be able to quickly respond to a

disaster and quickly get right back up on the horse and get back to work. and we must do this -- we must secure the nation, we must be resilient, and we must work one person, one home town, one community at a time. as has already been mentioned, next month is the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. there is no question but that our country is stronger and more secure against that type of attack than it was a decade ago. we have bounced back, and we have bounced back very strongly from what was the worst attack ever on our soil. we have made progress on every front to protect ourselves. indeed, a few weeks ago, the department released a report

outlining with specifics the actual progress that has been made by the department of homeland security and by our many partners in fulfilling specific recommendations of the 9/11 commission that were directed at the department. this means strides over the last decade to protect our nation against large vast scale attacks or disasters, to protect our critical -- large-scale attacks or disasters, to protect our critical infrastructure, and to engage a broader range of americans in the shared responsibility for security. indeed, our experience over the last 10 years has made last smarter -- us smarter about the evolving threats we face and how best to deal with them. we have used the knowledge and our experience to make our nations and community -- nation

and community more resilient and impervious, not just to terrorist attack, but to disasters of all kinds. have done so in the context of making sure that we also -- we have done so in the context of making sure that we also preserving our fundamental rights as citizens of the united states. as part of our effort, we have increased information sharing to state and local law force agencies -- law enforcement agencies and to the general public. we do so because of the fundamental principle that all of us have all role to play in thwarting potential attacks -- a role to play in supporting potential attacks and reporting suspicious activity to the authorities. you will hear more later. see something, say something. it is easy to remember, and something that we hope the

american populace begins to incorporate as a matter of course if you see something, you say something. the role of the private sector is very significant, which is one of the reasons why i find it is important to address this group on a regular basis. with our private-sector partners, we have increased preparedness for disasters and we have strengthened the resilience, particularly of our most of vulnerable, critical infrastructures. two weeks ago, dhs and fema and northcom partner with tus to prevented -- present the first annual resilience conference, furthering our efforts to partner with the private sector to sustain and secure homeland. together now with the world customs organization, with the international maritime

organization, and with the international civil aviation organization, and also with the united postal union, we have initiated a major international campaign to better secure the global supply chain. this means that, when a good enters the stream of commerce and ultimately enters our shores, we're working to make sure that, all along that route, where it crosses international boundaries, where different personnel may be involved, that security measures are being taken and that they are becoming more standardized as we work through the global economy and work toward the fact that we have to deal with -- homeland security also means international security in this regard. we're working with the private sector and international

partners to expand and integrate trusted traveler and trusted shipper programs to facilitate a legitimate travel and trade while also enhancing security. what does this mean? what it means is that we are adopting and working to implement risc-based, intel- -- risk-based, intel-based strategies for people, passenger, and goods, cargo, international and domestic. what does this mean for practical purposes? it means that, ultimately, we want to be able to expand programs like will entry that allow those, for example, businesses -- global entry that allow those, for example, business travelers who are traveling frequently to process through the lines expeditiously. some of you may have already have your card.

everybody that i know who has used it has been more than pleased. we have produced an online resource catalog to make it easier for our private-sector partners to find and utilize the information they need, from bombing prevention resources to first-responder and communication technologies. this year, we launched the private sector preparedness, ps- prep, program to enable private- sector -- private-sector emergency-in their preparedness planning. not every plan is all that it needs to be to really provide the security that you need. the ps-prep, available online, is designed to give you that information.

we have also launched this year a loan executive program to enable top executive talent from the private sector to share their expertise with the department, particularly with respect to filling certain, discreet needs. we recognize that we need to have the private sector -- that there are execs that, if they will be loaned to us for awhile, it is helpful to us. quite frankly, it is also helpful to the private sector to have more on the ground exchange about what really happens at the department on an ongoing basis. as i have mentioned before, the public has an important role to play here. everyone has a role to play in security. it is a shared responsibility. of particular importance and where the private sector can

continue to play a key role is in the efforts to increase public vigilance and awareness of threats and reporting of suspicious activity to the authorities. why is this important? because time and time again, we have seen that on alert public, including business owners, when they -- an alert public, including business owners, when they alert authorities when something does not seem quite right -- when someone has seen something and said something, it has helped prevent crime and terrorism. it was two alert street vendors in new york city who notified police when they saw us suspicious vehicle near times square last may and their actions that help stop an attack in progress -- helped stop an attack in progress and help us find the perpetrator -- helped us find the perpetrator.

in washington, observers help us find a suspicious backpacked and thwart what almost certainly would have been a deadly bombing. more recently, the owner of a gun store near fort hood called authorities when an individual acting in the store -- he was behaving in a suspicious manner. these actions helped prevent a suspicious terrorist attack -- a potential terrorist attack that could have taken many lives. those are three examples that have been in the open-source media. there are many others as well. the importance of public awareness in fighting crime, in fighting terrorism, in preventing violence is critical. that is why, over the past two years, we have been strengthening and expanding one of the most successful public- awareness programs in our country. the "if you see something, say something" campaign."

-- campaign. it's a very simple message, first implemented by new york city's metropolitan transportation authority to raise indicators and awareness. it emphasizes the importance of reporting to proper law- enforcement authorities, federal buildings, transit systems, sports venues, major retail the news, entertainment venues -- major retail venues, and entertainment venues. we have partners including the ncaa, the nba, the indianapolis 500, retailers such as walmart, the mall of america, the general aviation industry, and many others.

i am proud to announce a new partner in the "if you see something, say something" campaign, the united states chamber of commerce. they are encouraging all of their members to utilize the new public service announcement that we are availing today and to find ways to partner with dhs to get this message out. we're working to develop materials that can be used in regional offices across the country and also within particular communities. i would like to congratulate the chamber on joining the campaign. i look forward to their support and to working with you on this important initiative. today, we're going to continue the "if you see something, say something" campaign expansion. we continue to add partners and materials. 30-e releasing a new set of

second national, public-service announcements designed to engage the public in identifying and reporting suspicious activity. each public-service announcement presents a different scenario involving a suspicious activity, what to do, and how to notify the appropriate authorities. we will show you one of the 30- second psa's in just a moment. that is a little tease. in connection with that, i would like to issue a challenge to you. my open my charge to you today -- my hope and my charge to you today is to help us spread this message. you can do it when you return home. you can share the psa's with your colleagues and employees. you can help us reach an even broader audience by showing them in your own venue, by showing

them in stores, businesses that you operate, linking them to company web sites -- websites so that employees have access, including in your own marketing campaigns. you can partner with us to bring the "if you see something, say something" campaign right into your company or business. quite frankly, we need all hands on deck in this effort. as members of the private sector, you know, and i know, in my role as secretary, how hard it is to get the message across to the general public to get them thinking in this way. homeland security -- no government department, no matter how large or well run, can do it by itself. the private sector, no matter how large or well run, can do it by itself. it has to be a public-private

partnership and the public has to be involved. we think that emphasis will help us ensure that we have all hands on deck. i think, as governor-secretary ridge has described, we have done much in the last 10 years to better our country, to keep our nation safe. we have a lot of efforts under way right now. the credit for this is widespread. a lot of it should go, quite frankly, to the men and women who are on the front lines, working these issues every day, including a counter-terrorism and law-enforcement professionals -- including our counterterrorism and law- enforcement professionals, including volunteers, state, local, tribal governments -. the list goes on. when we all work together --

what we call homeland security is truly a national participation -- national- participation enterprise. as was previously described, the kinds of threats we now face, from terrorism, threats in cyberspace, pandemic disease, natural disasters of all types, demand that we strengthen our capacity to work together. it demands the continued vigilance of the american people we are stronger than we were on 9/11 -- people. we are stronger than we were on 9/11. there are no guarantees. i am not here to offer guarantees. there are lots of things that are threatened. what we can do is maximize our ability to prevent an attack from occurring, minimize the ability of such an attack having

a large impact, and increase our ability to respond with efficiency and effectiveness, and to get, as i said earlier, to get right back up on the course and back to the business of the country -- horse and back to the business of the country. i would like to play for you, for the very first time, this 30-second television psa. there are 15-second versions, as well as radio versions, all avilable at www.dhs.gov/if youseesomethingsaysomething. let's set aside 30 seconds and see the new spot.

>> maybe you see something suspicious, but you do not want to get involved. it is nothing, you say. can you be sure? if you see something, say something. report suspicious activity to local authorities. >> what do you think? [applause] yeah. so, again, thank you for what you have done today. thank you for what you are going to continue to do. help us spread the word. thank you very much. [applause] >> we will take a few questions that there are any. please identify yourself and wait for the microphone to come

to you. >> any questions? yeah. >> [inaudible] >> no. you point out a valuable thing. we want the public to live with information, but not to live in fear. when they haven't permission, that -- have information, that helps reduce the level of fear. that's one of the reasons we matured out of the color code and substituted the national threat advisory system, which is designed, when we have specific, credible information about a threat, to go to the public with the information that we have and tell them where they can get on going information.

the national threat advisory system has replaced the color code. the idea is that you can be empowered. "see something, say something" is the same thing. we have had it in enough places over the last two years that we have seen it is not abused by the public. we want to develop greater situational awareness. are you going to moderate? thanks, ann. there's the mic. >> thank you for this opportunity. you mentioned the u.s. is safer to counter-attacked like 9-11 -- 9/11. is it safe for from all kinds of terrorist attacks and ideology -- safer from all kinds of terrorist attacks and

ideologies? >> if you were to take the 9/11 attack and break it down into all the steps that needed to be taken by those terrorists to what a nice -- to weaponize commercial aircraft and fly them into the pentagon and shanksville, ultimately, we hav e a layered system of security which would give us multiple ways to intercept and interrupt that kind of large and complicated plot. what we see now are smaller plots involving fewer people, so they are much more difficult to intercept, to pick up information about in time to intercept. we have been doing an awfully -- there has been an awful lot of good work done, but we're seeing smaller plots using a variety of techniques. they are derived

internationally. we're also seeing the rise of activities by individuals who are also -- who are in the country. they are acting by themselves. that kind of attack is the most difficult to prevent. there is nothing to intercept and so forth. you have to go and use other methods. one of the other methods is for every citizen of the united states -- every person in the united states to have awareness of their surroundings and feel comfortable in reporting suspicious activities to the authorities. >> in the back. >> thank you very much. since 9/11, you have seen an expansion of the government powers to protect american citizens from the threat of terrorism, as well as an extension of bureaucracy. can you sketch out a scenario when you think the federal government will not need some of

those extraordinary powers, a scenario where the united states could return to a pre-9/11 flooding in terms of the power of the u.s. government -- flooding in terms of the power of the u.s. government -- footing in terms of the power of the u.s. government? >> no. [laughter] realistically, environments change. 9/11 was a signal of a change. what is the change? that change is the threat against the united states, moated and debated -- motivated by various ideologists and terrorists, aimed at trying to commit a crime, motivated by that ideology, that will have an undue impact on our society, either economically and/or by number of individuals affected.

i and we at the department, we run this assuming that is the environment. the questions presented are what are the best things we can do, consistent with the american values of civil liberties and privacy? one of the things in the department right now is our own civil liberties office. we examine all our programs and activities from that perspective. we also have one of, i think only two -- one of, i think, only two privacy officers. they analyzed, from the privacy perspective, all of the activities that we do. we live in an environment where terrorism and those sorts of threats are part of what we have

to deal with. we also, however, want to do so in a way that is respectful of ban protects the civil liberties and values 0-- of and protects the civil liberties and values that we are fighting for. it is that balance that we struggle for on a day-to-day basis. the "if you see something, say something" campaign has been on amtrak, on metro here -- you probably have heard my voice if you ride metro. all of the march madness venues had the "if you see something, say something" campaign messages running in their arenas. we are taking it to the next level. let's focus on individuals and

see if we can make sure that the individuals of the united states acknowledge the shared responsibility for security and acknowledge and incorporate the values of the "if you see something, say something" campaign that is designed to help protect all of us. i can take one or two more. i know what i have to do next, so i would rather stay here. [laughter] two more. >> i am from system planning corp.. we have reacted to some very severe issues. where do we stand on the opportunity to reciprocate the requirement that we are placed on our overseas trading partners and perform the same services for them? we have been, traditionally, an

importing country, but we have goals of vastly increasing our exports as a jobs program and what have you. is there any thought that, perhaps it would be a good idea, if we were to offer those same types of scanning systems -- services that others around the world perform for us that we would perform for them? >> we have had discussions -- and this kind of goes to the global supply chain program that i mentioned briefly in my remarks. it is very much a reciprocal type of program in terms of standards for inspecting goods and looking at -- when they first enter the stream of commerce, the forwarders, the consigners, all of the different

places where different personnel might touch a container or vessel -. doing what would be needed to make sure there were not weapons or explosives that could be remotely detonated or the like. the global-supply chain strategy covers about 180 to 190 countries. it is designed to make sure we are using the same sorts of standards. you are right to say that there can, over time, i think we will be able to do some joint leveraging and sharing of those responsibilities. >> madam secretary. governor ridge spoke to the entry-exit system. we know when people come to the country. one of the things we do not understand is when they leave. could you speak to your vision

of stay management? when will we see a solution for the entry-exit management? >> we have made some progress in the last few months. we have gone back and looked at the original estimate of 1.1 million visa overstays in the country. we have gone back and look that and systematized -- looked and and systematized -- we have gone back and looked at and systematized to reduce that number by half. one thing that is different now than when the initial u.s. entry-exit system was conceived is that we have much more

biographic data, as opposed to biometric. we have many more databases that are now appropriately linked and can be searched to keep track of when people leave the country and to know better where people are who have overstayed their visas. we can prioritize among those who needs to be touched by law enforcement first. fugitivesare risks, from justice, that sort of thing. we have been able to clear the list. we have basically completed the process of prioritizing the remainder. through the fact that we have

many more ways to buy a graphically -- to biographically ascertain when someone has left the country -- we have a different ability. originally, there was a universal biometric exit system. we piloted it in several places. the cost is very, very, very high. we believe, and our analysis demonstrates, that with the data we now collect and have organized, and have systematized, with the ability to search very quickly -- sometimes, we move billions of these daily. we get virtually the same result. it is much more economically efficient. in this day and age, addressing

the problem and figuring out an answer that gets us where we in a way that is cheaper and more efficient -- that is one of the challenges we have and that is what we have attained. we are cognizant of the problem. great, great progress has been made. thank you all very much. see something, say something. [applause] >> today on "newsmakers," education secretary arne duncan talks about the state of the u.s. education system and how u.s. companies compare with other companies in jobs. >> jobs are going to go to where the best workers are. we're not competing for jobs in districts or states or our country. we are competing for jobs with

india, china, south korea, singapore. i think our children are as smart, talented, entrepreneurial as children anywhere in the world. i want to give them the chance to compete on a level playing field. i want them to be successful. the brutal truth is that an object -- is that other countries are out-educating us. >> you can see the entire interview with education secretary arne duncan on "newsmakers," 6:00 p.m., c-span, also available online at c- span.org. >> it is a country fraught with corruption, natural disasters, and islamist extremists. >> what was really shocking to me and many people was that these assassinations were welcomed, were congratulated by many pakistanis. these are not terrorists, not al qaeda, not taliban, but ordinary

pakistanis who feel that their religion is threatened, that the country is becoming too secular, that the islamic values are under attack, and that blasphemy, anything that assaults the product or -- prophet or islam is something to be defended with your life. >> pamela constable otnight -- tonight on c-span's "q&a." >> the event is courtesy of canada's public affairs channel and runs about 30 minutes. [applause] >> thank you. i will say merci beaucoup. >> welcome to canada.

>> because of the summer, i did not want to prepare a speech. [laughter] i am here because i am forced by my partners. [laughter] they pay me. [laughter] if it had been bill clinton coming here today, you would have no more surplus. i come here free of charge. i'm not paid to be here. we have quite good relations with the united states. i was the prime minister for 10 years. before that, in different portfolios, i met many of my colleagues on the united states and always managed to do good relations with them, sometimes with some political problem. something that helped me a bit is my father. he spent the first 10 years of

his life in manchester. one day, i was debating with bill clinton whether i would qualify to become the president of united states. he told me that, according to a treaty, he had somehow kept the right to rent to be president of -- right to run to be president of france. i wonder if i have the same privilege. [laughter] we balance the book in an easier way than you do in the united states. he would not give me permission to run for president of the united states, so i have to remain in canada. i am here to answer questions. we have a great tradition in canada. when you are a minister, prime

minister, you have a question period. the prime minister is expected to be there twice, three times, sometimes four times per week. it lasts 45 minutes. we answer most questions. they have the same tradition in england, great britain, but the prime minister is invited there to do that once a week for 20 minutes, receiving a notice of 40 hours in advance of the questions. i never received a notice of question beforehand. [laughter] it is the one thing that i miss from politics, because you have to answer questions every day on anything. you have to answer, because if you say you don't know, the press conclude that you know nothing. [laughter] you have to respond intelligently if you do not know anything about it. that's a hell of a job. politics is the art of survival, and i survived it.

i usually described politics as the part of skating on thin ice -- art of skating on thin ice. you never know when there will be a hole that will gobble you up and you disappear forever. i am here today to try my -- what i am missing is having to face an opposition. they try to embarrass you. they have the help of the press to find the questions that are embarrassing. but it is good for democracy, because the leader astana what is going on in the country. let's try it again. what's your question? >> we will bring the microphone around. you worked over 10 years with

two presidents of the united states, president clinton and bush. tell us about your working relationship with each one of them. >> very good. [laughter] [applause] do not forget, in the house of commons, you have only 45 seconds to reply. [laughter] it will be a supplementary question, i guess. >> please raise your hand if you have a question and we will bring the microphone to you. >> [unintelligible] >> [speaking french] >> good morning, mr. prime minister. what are your views on how to solve a dysfunctional system of government in the united states? >> you know, the problem you

have is your government, the way that it is organized. one-day, i got into some trouble because my friend clinton -- one day, i got into trouble because my friend clinton sometimes will arrive late. [laughter] he was late one morning. it was early in the morning and the colleagues were not very happy at the nato meeting. so, i got them to relax a bit. i said, you have to understand these americans. he can be very nice, but he cannot deliver anything. president of the united states is always nice, but he says the bloody senators do not want to deliver. you go to the senators. they say, we will do that, but the president is not up to the job. you go to the congressman, they say the same thing about the president or they blame the

senator. in the british system, the prime minister is running the legislative and executive leaders. when he gives his word, it is a done deal. because -- if the house of commons do not back him up, we have an election. so, the members do not want elections too often. if the prime minister goes too far, he could lose the confidence of his job and his job -- his parliament and lose his job. the president has the right of veto and the right to preach. but he have a budget, he stumps the budget, by the end of the

process, you have a different budget. it is complicated. i was the minister of finance. one of my friends had some americans in his home. i was to deliver a budget. he said, my friend is the minister of finance of canada and he will deliver the budget. i delivered my speech. the americans were listening. i said, tonight at midnight, this stock will increase, this tax will decrease. they were like, really? oh, yes. he means business. that's the way we operate. when the minister of finance presents a budget -- it has to be eventually approved, but the change is effective that night. it is this system you have that was designed by the fathers of

your country -- confederation to balance the power. but it is not working very well in the modern society like today to be objective. can you change it? i don't think youc an. [laughter] trying to change the constitution is a helluva job -- is a hell of a job. [laughter] i got elected by making one promise -- if you want to change the constitution, did not vote for me -- do not vote for me. [laughter] it is always the remedy. if you change the constitution, you will solve all of the problems. you will not. because of the will, the ambition, the objectives of everybody will always be complicated in a democracy. the people have to realize one

thing. i will speak very candidly. taxes.if you don't pay that is as simple as that. you cannot only cut programs. you can, for a while, but not very long. because one day the society will not function anymore. and you have to be responsible. your system of justice, the number of people you have in jail is irresponsible. everyone says they will be tough on crime. you know, you do not change human nature. you have to pass laws. like us, we have gun control here. and i had problems because we

forced the people to register their guns. right.y it's against my even in canada, they are starting to do that. he registers his dog, though, and his bicycle, though, and his cat, but not his gun. [laughter] so, we have five times less people dying in canada from shotguns than in the united states. i have guns. they are registered. you cannot talk like that. because -- i am watching this debate on tv all the time. everybody promises tax cuts. it is -- if you don't have

tax anymore, you don't know what to do with services. that's more than 45 seconds, i guess. [laughter] next. >> what was the greatest source of diplomatic tension between the united states and canada when you were prime minister? >> no. [laughter] we always have problems. it is normal when you have 5,000 miles of border, when you have trade to the tune of $1.5 billion or $2 billion a day. of course you have problems, but none of these problems were major problems. we can always solve it. uru did not want to buy o wood, our soft-wood lumber. you remember that? because the people from the

states did not like the competition. i used to tell my friend george w., if i were not to sell you more oil, natural gas, electricity, you will need a hell of a lot of soft-wood lumber to heat your homes. [laughter] we had a free-trade agreement, but we could not sell all the wood that we could sell. it would have made your house less expensive. now the dollar is higher than yours, so we cannot talk like that anymore. next. >> given the constitutional constraints we are operating under, how would you approach it

the reason that ceiling controversy if you had been president of the you -- approach the recent debt-ceiling controversy if you had been the president of the united states? >> you let the president and he will solve the problems, but he -- you elect the president to solve all the problems, but he has only veto rights. you do not realize that his power is very small, relatively speaking. of course he can push the button on the atomic bomb, but that will not solve the problem of the debt. [laughter] >> prime minister, could you explain to our american friends how you got to make the decision not to participate in the iraq war? >> it was easy. they were wrong and i said so. [laughter]

[applause] i never -- i was with them. they tried to persuade me. my friend tony blair, in particular. and one day, he was telling me, jean, you know, saddam is a terrible dictator. i said, of course he is a terrible dictator. but if we are in the business of replacing those we do not like, who is next? i said, by the way, you are number one in the commonwealth. i am number two. there is a guy you do not like in zimbabwe. why don't we solve that problem? he said, that's not the same.

he has of course not, no oil. they were not happy with me. it was tough for me. we are neighbors to america. the business people were very scared. they were afraid of retaliation. i asked them, i said, give me the list of all the goods and all of the services that the americans are buying form us and the-- from us and they don't need. there was no list, because business is business. for me, it turned out to be a great decision for my country. when i made the decision, the country was divided. now -- a year ago, they asked

the same question and more than 90% of the people said that i made the right decision. it was not easy. but you are paid to make these decisions. >> we have time for just a couple more questions. mr. prime minister, i understand you balanced the books here in canada. how would you do that in the united states? what is the difference between the process -- why you can do it here and not in the united states? how would you fix that? >> when i became prime minister in 1993, there was mention that canada could become a third- world nation. i had been the minister of finance. i had been in government 30 years, 20 years as a cabinet

minister. i knew that we faced the wall. so, we cut. we cut 20% of the budget. we went from $121 billion to $120 billion -- small for you, big for canada. we let go of 19% of the bureaucrats. people who were close to retirement, we let them go. it was a lot. but, as the economy was growing, it was less painful. but we did it. after that, there was no privilege. no department was safe. they all have a special case.

we only budget that was increased was the collector of taxes. [laughter] it is a good investment when you are another -- hire another tax collector. you know that, you lawyers. we started to charge for things that we were not charging, that were free before -- national parks and all sorts of services. i efel t-- i feel the people felt we were fair. we cut national defence. everybody has a good case. foreign affairs. everybody had to contribute. anyway, we were successful. another decision we made -- it is helping canada today, because we are doing much better than you are doing. you know, we are less than 3%

gdp as deficit. we had a decision that i am very proud of that is part of our success in relation to the united states. the banks of canada wanted to merge. my ministers were pro-business ministers. they thought it was the thing to do what the americans should be doing. i said no. the bankers, you know, they were very mad at me. when they hired me, i said don't come to me to get clients from the banks. [laughter] but now -- i met one the other day. i said, now, yo you know. i was working and i gave them

my views in the trial. what would be reasonable settlement? eventually both parties accepted my judgment. they wanted to have my >> in 1995, i said no to the merger of the banks. now you go around the world and they tell you that you are the best bankers in the world. i said that my judgment in that case.

that is what we did to maintain the situation. there was no negotiation. we had a good minister. every department which we had a very good minister who had been a bureaucrat, marcel masse, who presided the committee. he had no ambition to become skplerd so on. he did have to have friends and he reported with -- appealed to me. and i had told him that trudeau, one day, had called me. my first cabinet meetinghe had said jacques, you have not talked to me since a year. the minister of indian and northern affairs rushing mad at me? i said, no. he said, why are you not talking to me? but i said, i don't want to

disturb you. and if you're not calling me, i feel good about it so don't call me. if they were all iq, it would be so easy to be prime minister. and you know i said to all the cabinet colleagues, i said, this is not what happened to me after that. you all know that iive job after job after job. so they were not calling me. so it was done that way. it will be -- you cannot do that in your system, unfortunately. because nobody is in charge unfortunately. what i find because i was meeting with president bush, president clinton, clinton was my counterpart for eight years. and this is one of the frustrations. your president cannot deliver because of your em. and you blame him all the time. it's not fair.

whoever is the president, he is -- he has power over war. but not even there. when george bush senior went to war, he had a vote of 51 to 49, something like that, in the senate approval. but in the case of the iraq, it was unanimous. but the congress could have blocked and can block not the congress but the senate, i guess, can block any war. because of your -- in canada, it's an executive order. but the consequences is if the parliament disagrees with you, you're out. if and you're looking for a law firm. (applause) >> prime minister, i wonder if you could comment on the arab spring and what nato and the united states and canada is doing, pick a country, libya,

egypt, syria. >> you know, it's very difficult. because we don't know what will be the result. i remember, and we were not good at judging these things. but when we realized that -- and i had located that and we had some initiative at the u.n., you know, right to intervene for the protection of human rights, it was one of the initiatives that we had. that.here is a reverse side to now they prosecute these former leaders in court. but as they know that are going to jail, they hang around. there was days when the guys would quit and go in exile and it's over now. more or less. so it's always two sides of these things.

and one of the most telling stories was was the experience i the shah of iran when i was minister of trade. you know. lucky i was the minister a long time ago. and being small, dumb lawyer who acting in court, defending, i was on the defence side. defending criminals and so on. among other things. in a small town, you do everything. and so i told him that i would ask him questions about human rights situation in iran under the shah. and he said to me, young man, if they kick me out, it will be worse with the replacement. was he right? i guess so.

and so it's why when you ask me for a definitive answer, i'm always ambivalent because you don't know what will happen next. and we have a good system that we call democracy, but it's not perfect either. as churchill said, it was the worst -- a terrible system but there is none better than that. but it's not perfect. and in some countries, you know, for us here, you know, i pass laws on spending, on elections. you know, but your court said that no limit to that. fine. but, you kno, one election, i was talking when hillary clinton became senator of the state of new york, one senator in one state, i had an

election the same year with 300 candidates. the national campaign and i had to raise two-thirds of the money that she had to raise to be senator of new york. here you have limits on contributions. nobody can give more than $1200 a year. there is during the time of election, there is a limit, you know, you cannot start advertising before so many days when the campaign. and you stop the last five days. and the campaign is only 35 days. and you, you guys start to run two years before and you have to raise billions of dollars. you know, it's a real problem. but it's not my business. but i prefer my -- our system. but if i get going ont subject, my friends and others

of the same nature, you won't wo for tododod

educating us. >> you can see the entire interview on "newsmakers" today all right at 6:00 p.m. on c- span. it is also available online at c-span.org. think he ought>> it is a country fraught with corruption and islamic extremists.

>> monday, a discussion on education and the head start program followed by an overview of the obama administration approach from the director of head start. hosted by the brookings institution, the discussion gets underway at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. from today's ," a discussion of the republican presidential candidates finie, democratic strategist and former communications director for the dnc. the president's week, the gallup poll has him at a 26 approval on the economy, the stock market and european banks. how bad is this for the administration and what must the president do to recover?

guest: i think it's bad all over and what we've seen in the polls and the market reactions has been it's not just about the president. i think there's accountability all across this town and voters know that. their frustration and what the markets are telling us is people need to get something done. i think the president wisely this week has positioned himself as the guy who is trying to get something done. we've heard that he's going to try to put out a new proposal, although i imagine it will have a lot of old ideas we've already heard in september but also the theme that is we heard this week will continue to hear into the fall and that is the idea of a do nothing congress and the things that he is trying to do but the fact that it is a reality and he needs congress' help. host: tony, republican strategist and former deputy press secretary in the bush administration. for those that are criss-crossing between iowa, south carolina and new hampshire those who are running

for the republican presidential nomination, how do they take advantage of these numbers from gallup? guest: well, i think the best thing for republican candidates to do is to focus on the economy and the policies that the obama administration has put in place. the president has a record of implementing economic policies and we have results that come in weekly and monthly and quarterly in the form of economic data reports. and that's really where their focus ought to be. that won't be enough though for them because they need to articulate what their policies will be going forward for how they would change economic policy, and improve economic conditions for americans. host: another gallup poll also says that 11% of americans are satisfied with the way things are going in this country. for the republicans who are running for the presidency, what do they say to their

constituents and to potential voters that get them to understand that they would be able to decrease that number or make that number better for the republicans? guest: that's only going to come from articulating the new policies that they can convince americans will work. now, the problem for republican candidates, actually for all candidates right now, is that they've seen a stream of economic policies not just over the past 2-1/2 years but over the past four years or so to try to improve conditions in the economy and they're incredibly skeptical all across the ideological spectrum, republicans, democrats, independents, are all very skeptical of policies that they're hearing from washington that will have an impact for them. and, unfortunately for every -- certainly for the administration right now, is that the economy that we have today is very likely the economy that we're going to have over the next six to eight

months at least, at least if you believe the private sector forecast that came out over the past week. host: and karen, for the 88% or 89%, according to the gallup poll who aren't satisfied with the way things are going, what does the president have to say to them? >> i think the president needs to continue to articulate what it is he is trying to accomplish to create jobs and create the condition that is do create jobs. and going into the 2012 cycle, remember, to a -- saying the republicans, the leading republicans are trying to make their economic argument. so you have government perry talking about his record in texas. it will be interesting to see how much of that was in part related to federal dollars. not to mention that unemployment in texas now is lower than it's been since the 80's. then on the other hand mitt romney trying to make the argument as a business person. so his record. and also frankly his record as

governor of massachusetts will be on the table for comparison. i think at the end of the day, look, this economy is going to be tough for quite a while and i think americans are finally realizing that. i think as long as they believe that the president is legitimately trying to do thing that is they think could work, i think that's the best argument you can make because unfortunately to some degree some of this stuff is just going to take time. host: tony, in the "washington post" this morning, an article talking about governor rick perry and campaigning in south carolina and picking up an endorsement from former state house speaker david wilkins who served as president bush's ambassador to canada. how important is that endorsement in south carolina? . .

guest: i do not know if he feels as strongly about his opportunities in new hampshire. he really needs the south carolina strategy regardless of what happens in the hampshire, he comes through strong in the south carolina primary. host: we are talking about campaign 2012 with a democratic strategist and a republican strategist. the numbers are on the screen. you can get in touch with us by e-mail or twitter or you can

post something on our facebook page. our first call comes from south carolina. don, you are on are "newsmakers ." caller: i have a question for miss finney. it seems to me that president obama has been on the defensive for a long time. that we need to get on the offensive. what i mean by that is karl rove -- they have pac's been attacking policy and message trying to define it. all we do is defend that position. what i mean by offensive -- why does he not talk to dennis kucinich, appoint him as being the new consumer advocate for financial situations? let him get tough out there? even though the republicans will prevent that from happening or

at least try, every day, he would be out there pounding it about how we need to enforce the new roles for the banks. that is the kind of stuff we need. we need maybe congressman fahad. let him take over secretary of the treasury. f you get these super pac's having to defend other positions, the strict obama policy -- and i know you hate to hear this, but it is kind of like football. you have the linebackers blitzing the president every play. host: this is turning into a different kind of a program. caller: personal like -- guest: personally, agreed to a large extent in terms of the need to be on offense. many democrats have been frustrated that so much of the

economic conversation has been on defense, and we have been fighting it essentially on the gop turf. we are trying to defend our ideas rather than being on offense and challenging their ideas a little bit more headlong. one of the things you will see this fall -- we will go into the supercommittee process -- remains to be seen whether or not they get something done. political pressure from outside washington is increasing, which is a good thing in terms of getting something done at the same time, it kind of freeze up the president to some degree to push his ideas and be on offense, and i hope he takes the opportunity to really push people to say that if we are talking about a payroll tax cut and we think that is a good idea, he needs to be aggressive and go on offense and dare congress not to do it. hopefully, we will see some version of that year and >>efully fewer blitzes' let's move on to sarasota, florida.

ted on our line for republicans. caller: good morning here i feel that president obama, from the line he has taken office, he has basically had to play along with the existing game that is going on with the special interests -- from the time he has taken office. i think the only one who has been sincere is ron paul. he is the only one really promoting change. host: would you go along with that? guest: a lot of buildings in washington are filled with groups -- that represent special interests. every person in america is a member of the least it will notify us -- two to five so- called special interests, and it is a theme that occurs every election. i think the election will be fought on relatively vague ideas, and maybe some big ideas that we have not had an opportunity to debate in very serious ways in the past.

at least that is what i hope the election will be about. the big issue is, like, the role of government. how we deal with revenue. how we deal with entitlements. if that is what this election will be about, it will be a very good election for the country and for the american people and for the direction of the country going forward. host: joe on our line for independence in new york, you are on "washington journal." caller: thank you. i like to know what your guests think is obama's greatest accomplishment -- increasing the national debt, having more americans unemployed, doubling the cost of health care, or gays in the military. host: thanks for your call. and your sarcasm. guest: the president's job is -- any president's job is a tough one. he has had to deal, obviously,

with difficult circumstances. i think their belief is that the health care bill they signed it is the greatest accomplishment of his presidency. we will have some time over the next couple of years to see whether it bears fruit as a great accomplishment or not, but the white house right now is campaigning on a message of having tried very hard to do certain things, and, you know, the problem with that is the americans are tired of hearing about trying. they want to hear about doing. host: we have a tweet. "are there any positive aspects of liberal policy that for this results the democrats can run on?" guest: of course there are.

the health-care debate got so out of control but a lot of people do not realize how many good things there are, and as those things come online, people are realizing -- personally, i suffer from migraines. that is considered a pre- existing condition. the medications are very expensive. luckily, thanks to the health care legislation, i cannot be denied coverage. i can get those medications at a more reasonable cost. i can list a number of things. i would also like to go back to the caller pose a question. yes, i think gays in the military is a great thing. i think it is good to have a president who is standing up for equal rights and human rights for everyone in this country. i also believe that this president -- while i have not always agree tactically with the way he has done things, and i am personally more of a fighter -- maybe that is more the clinton staffer in me -- i think he has really tried stylistically to

approach the problems that we face in a different way. it was what we said we wanted in 2008. we said we did not want any more of the tabloid diplomacy. that we wanted a guy who would not engage in the traditional bottles of left and right. i think he has tried to do that. i also think he has done a fairly good job navigating what i think anyone would say, for our pretty unprecedented circumstances both in terms of the economy and what we have seen on the world stage and global markets in the two-plus years he has been president. >> there wasn't -- host: there was an article in this morning's "new york times." democratic strategist and onetime clinton adviser, your thoughts on that title of that article. guest: it is very true. john mccain were president, we would still be in this mess. there's a degree of reality that

this mess -- again, it is unprecedented, and we have been impacted by a number of different forces. hillary were president, there might be some different things we would have handled a little bit differently, but, you know, she is not president. barack obama is president. the important thing for him to do right now is to lay out the choice that will be there for people in november 2012 and not try to focus on what it's -- what-if's. host: if john mccann were president, would we still be in this mess? who of the top tier republican candidates so far do you think would be best at getting us out of the mess we are in? >> i am not going to -- guest: i am not going to bed from the current candidates -- not going to bet from the current candidates. but, look, i go back to hillary

clinton. if we make an assumption that the policies of the clinton administration -- of the bill clinton administration would reflect the likely policies of a hillary clinton administration, i think a lot of americans would welcome a lot of those policies compared to what they have seen over the past two and a half years, and that was largely a notion of putting in place long term policies would be more for prefer changing incentives from the economy and changing growth and also a strong commitment to free trade, which we have not seen yet from this administration. >> back to the phones on our line for democrats. caller: yes, i was just wondering -- are kenneth it's going to be honest with american people about the economic trouble we are in -- are candidates going to be honest?

it looks like economists are predicting unemployment will be long-term it is going to be 9%. we have a huge national debt, which has been accumulating over to the we will or three decades. the manufacturing sector of our economy has been declining for the last two decades. the middle class has been shrinking. the rich have been doing very well, but the rest of the population has been stagnating. is someone going to talk real about the economy and say we are in for rough times ahead? we have had trouble for the last couple of years, and we are now up against the wall. >> talk to us about some of the real talk coming from the republican side. guest: he notes something that i think a lot of americans say.

i hear it all the time. people ask why they can in washington just do the right thing. the problem is you talk to americans and ask what the right thing is, and the views are really diverse. i'm sure you see it on this show every day. the diversity and views as to what the right thing is. if you take spending and the debt, everybody wants to cut spending. no one wants to cut any of ridiculous program. it's a question is how honest will -- no one wants to cut any particular program. if the question is how honest it will be, they will be as honest as the american people let them be. a lot of american people typically do not want to hear the real truth about what cutting means, what reducing deficits means for a lot of

federal programs, but that is the debate we have to have, and i think we need to go through this time really helping to educate american people about what the payrolls are about long-term growth in spending and what changing those programs will mean for americans. host: our next call comes from paul on our line for republicans in saratoga, new york. caller: yes, good morning, everyone. my question is if president obama is still -- so concerned about creating jobs in america, why were his two new buses built in tibet, canada? guest: it is my understanding that those losses are part of a fleet of a number of buses that the secret service commission some time ago, and their intention is that obviously, these buses were used by the

president and the republican nominee ultimately will use buses during the general election. obviously, they clearly made the decision when they decided what their security needs were, where the best place to have those made were appear perhaps the company was best positioned to do that. there are a lot of parts of the presidency -- and it is an easy target for democratic and republican presidents, in terms of security concerns, logistical issues. i can say particularly, that was part of my job working for president clinton, and it is pretty substantial. when the secret service tells you what you need to do not just to keep the president's safe but also the people who travel with him, it is a hard thing for a president to say no. the other thing i will remind you is that those will be in use for a pretty long time to come.

host: all right. rather talk about the economy. we're going to take a listen to what the president had is a first and get a response, and then we will listen to what governor had to say and get a response to your first, the president. >> we can cut payroll taxes again so families have an extra $1,000 to spend your we can pass a road construction bill so construction crews who are now sitting idle can head back to the work site. we're building roads and bridges and airports. we have brave, skilled americans returning from iraq and afghanistan. let's connect them with businesses that can use their skills and past trade bills to level the playing field for our businesses. host: your response. guest: these are the same messages we have heard from the present at for quite a while now, certainly going back even to the very first stimulus about infrastructure, some marginal

payroll tax breaks either for workers or employers. problem is these are all, again, very short-term one-off kinds of economic policies. i think, as i said earlier, the american people have heard a lot of this, and i do not think it is something that will be persuasive to them right now. host: the republican response came from governor case in ohio. >> it is my hope president obama will listen to the people and partner with republicans to get our economy back to creating jobs and producing growth. it is just as important that republicans not be stiff necked about working across the aisle when important work must be done. it is ok to compromise on policy as long as you do not compromise on your principles. guest: it is interesting. a lot of this goes back to what we have been talking about. it is good to hear him talk about reaching across the aisle and getting work done because,

obviously, that is not what we were hearing back when congress was in session, and i think it is the only way we will get something done. part of the problem in the economic conversations we have is it gets so quickly boil down to the sound bite and the rhetoric. we did not give people the whole picture, so it is important that when we talk about these kinds of cuts we're talking about, what is the impact on main street and communities? it sounds good in washington when big numbers are thrown around, but we never get to the level of conversation of saying how it will affect you. that is why people were so afraid when they heard about the ryan plan appeared when they looked at the numbers and saw the kind of impact it would have, they said it was not quite what they meant. so if we're going have the conversation, it needs to be a full of conversation. i also think we have consistently found a way to do what we needed to do in terms of spending and revenues consistent with our values. we are a country that believes

in public education. a country that believes afterlife of work paid into the social security system, you get something back. when you talk about staying true values, i would remind republicans that those are part of our values and rather than throwing big numbers out, let's make sure we think about how those numbers impact people. host: we continue our conversation. sheila from connecticut on our line for independencts. caller: this question is especially for carry. i would like you to give me a good reason why we cannot have ron reagan, jr. i always watch him on chris matthews and get so excited when he appears because he is very liberal, but so what? kind of the liberals stand up for their release as ron reagan does and never back down. ok? it is time to get him as a straight shooter in the white

house and does not talk out of both sides of his mouth. i think if he runs for president, he will sway a lot of the republicans because he is so levelheaded. i am hoping that if he decides to run, he will seriously consider china push governor schweitzer as his running mate. he has such a resume, and i wish you would look into them. even though he is a sitting governor, i hope the people would let him go. also, i am and independent. do you think there is a possibility for 2012 to let us in the primaries? give me a good reason for that. they have never answered that for me. guest: personally, i think all primaries should be open. i think it would change the dynamics. i do not know why we do not do it that way. i think it would be a great thing to do. with regard to ron reagan, i

love a good, strong liberal, let me tell you. i do not think he wants to run for president, is the answer to your question. i also think that unfortunately, the reality is people come to washington with ideally the best of intentions, and unfortunately, compromise means you do not get everything that you want. even if ron reagan was president, i think you would still see more compromise then you would probably want to see ultimately. >> this time last week, we were talking about the results of the iowa straw poll. michele bachmann won with 28.5% of the vote. ron paul very close behind. then, tim pawlenty, who is no longer in the running, followed by rick santorum, herman cain, rick perry, and so forth. what has been the major

significant change in the run for the white house from the republican side between last sunday and today? them to give you a big differences -- one was governor pawlenty dropping out of the race because of his disappointing showing in the iowa straw poll, and texas governor repairing getting into the race that day and roaring into south carolina and iowa and starting his race and really define it as, you know, eight two or three-person race at this time. most people consider the top tier candidates rick perry, governor romney, and michele bachmann coming off her win in iowa. that is largely with the race is right now with some of the other candidates confined 08, or maybe if we see an entry from someone else not in the race come in. host: ron reagan. [laughter]

if you are not in the top tier, what do you have to do to get in the top tier? how do you attract the support and that money? guest: it is tough for these candidates right now. the candidates we are talking about are ron paul, rick santorum, herman cain, jon huntsman. all have various attributes that should appeal to some segment of the republican party. all have some experience that they can draw on. money-raising is going to be very difficult for them. unlike michele bachmann, who should do fairly well coming off her win. governor romney has always been a strong fund raiser. governor perry will raise a lot of money, especially out of texas, to get his campaign started. those candidates had a chance to expand their voice in iowa with a very small subset of republican voters, and the fact that they failed to really take

advantage of that opportunity probably will leave them in that second year. >> this headline from kabc in los angeles. maxine waters says barack obama is neglecting black communities. is this the kind of thing that the president needs to be dealing with right now? as he moves into -- moves past labor day and gets a kick -- his campaign up and running? >> on the political side, the african-american vote was -- played a critical role in the president's election in 2008 and will again in 2012, no question. but i think what you're hearing from black voters is a frustration of being taken for

granted. unfortunately, that is historically a problem in my party that somewhere in a strategy session, people say just like they say with the far left or sometimes in the republican section -- session in the far right, who else are they going to vote for? that is not appropriate. i would like to see us change the dialogue because i agree that when you look at black -- african-american unemployment looking at 16%, the president should be focusing specifically on those communities, but every president should be focusing on those communities. certainly because he is a black president, we are talking about this in a we have not before. we did not talk about whether or not president bush had a black agenda. we talked about it with president clinton because people joked that he was the first black president. my personal opinion is every single president, if you are president of the country, should be concerned with each of these subgroups, and each should be part of the conversation every

time we talk about what is happening in the economy because that is really the complete picture. host: before we get back to the fauves, is there one particular or two or three particular candidates on the republican side who are poised to take advantage of what seems to be a little bit of disgruntlement, either in the african-american or hispanic communities on the democratic side? >> i would really love to see that. some of the data that the -- that the cbc are urgent for a lot of citizens in the country, and some of the candidates who are running have experience with some of those communities. you go to some of the school districts in dallas that are graduating less than 30% of their students -- that is a

permanent damage to our future productivity, to the lives of those individuals, and to the communities in which they live, so i would love to see all the candidates talking about ways to deal with these very urgent issues. to me, it is not a race issue. it is a national prosperity issue. we need to have these communities thriving. unfortunately, we see these kinds of difficult economic and education and opportunity situations all across the country, still largely near our urban centers, but also in rural centers right now, and it does need to be a priority. the politics of it i think do occasionally make it difficult. we do tend to see democratic candidates take advantage of the harsh terms. they can overlook the political support they will get from those

communities, and republicans can assume they are not going to get political support from those communities. we need to find a way to generate attention from both political parties to what is happening in these communities. >> let's get back to the phones. caller: i have been listening on the phone for a bit now. tony, i have not seen you in awhile. karen, i have not seen you in awhile. i really do not know what to say after listening so far. the congressional black caucus is criticizing president obama? host: yes, that was the story. caller: it shows how in some ways of certification it is to try to make politics of 2012 when we are not even near november of 2011 yet.

that said, i feel bad for the gop in a lot of ways. i think barack obama is going to win pretty easily, and the reason why it is simply this -- a man like tim pawlenty who is a serious politician, governor of the state of minnesota, was somehow told to have to drop out of the presidential race simply because he lost some 8000 votes at a county fair. it is silly. the entire politics is silly. host: we are going to leave it there. guest: the system really is a little bit -- i was at the iowa straw poll as an observer, and it was the first time i had been to a straw poll, and i did find it a little bit odd that this very small group of voters from i/o can affect the -- from iowa can affect the election or

aspirations of a serious candidate like tim pawlenty. guest: i guess each cycle seized different events take on a different level of significance. when you have such a big field, you have got to use something to try to stop waddling down the field. i think pawlenty did put a lot of energy into trying to say they wanted to show progress. i think they did not show the progress that they thought they needed to, and there are some heavy hitters on the top now who are raising a lot of the cash, and that becomes kind of a practical reality because campaigning is increasingly so expensive. >> among the heavy hitters karen referred to, tony, is not former speaker newt gingrich. what does he have to do in order to jump over three or four other people to get into the top tier? guest: i think is campaigns have largely been about him and his

ideas. he's good at talking about his ideas and articulating them in interesting ways that grab attention, but he has never been good from a cabinet instead what at organizing, and we are seeing that now with a very small and broken campaign structure. you cannot run a modern presidential campaign without fund raising, without organization. this may be even goes back to tim pawlenty. on the one side, you can say the a small group of voters, for a couple of thousand votes, he could have done very well, but if you cannot organize at the straw poll and get this couple of extra votes, you probably cannot win in new hampshire and south carolina and florida. host: another thing that has been getting a lot of press is, it's that governor harry made regarding the fed chairman. you had a tweak -- tweet about

that. >> i am -- guest: i am critical about governor perry's, is. his comments were that the policy that the fed chairman was executing was -- i think he said was almost treasonous and politically motivated. i took issue with those comments. i know bernanke a little bit. i know his policies and what the fed's thinking is quite a lot, and one thing you can say about bernanke -- anything you would say about him, about his choices on monetary policy, which i tend to support, he is not an unpatriotic american. he is doing his best for the country. i think that comment crossed the line, and you will see that in the heat of a presidential campaign, but i think it is important work, as do cross a line that you note i did.

>> ironically -- guest: ironically, i think that may have helped governor harry. he and michele bachmann are competing for a sum of the same voters. a lot of her comments have been that she is not the establishment candidate. when you have people criticizing the republican -- the republican establishment criticizing perry, i think in some ways, that ends up helping him. host: our last call comes from taxes on our line from republicans. caller: good morning. i think everyone is ignoring the 10,000-pound gorilla in the room, and that is the national debt. that is what the debate should be about. the country is not a company, but it has to be run like a company, and if it is that in debt, business is not going to be created.

jobs are not going to be created as long as the country company is so deeply in debt. we know not which way we are going. mr. bernanke asked -- comes -- posed the question a few weeks ago, saying gold is not money. the reason people are turning to gold -- our money is turning into nothing. as an hourly wage earner, i asked both this lady and gentleman, why can there not be a cash break for the hourly worker? talking about the man that works 40 hours a week and then another 20. why do i have to pay taxes -- you cannot get enough out of my 40 hours a week to pay the bill that this country company has to pay, why should you tax me a higher rate after i am their 40 hours a week, away from my family, away from my dog, away

from my house. i put in 20 more hours for this company country and my family. host: we are going to leave it there. guest: people are angry about taxes and spending. we have a lot of people angry about the amount of spending. we have a lot of people angry about the amount of taxes, even though we have a large proportion of our workers in the country who pay very little or no net federal income tax. educating americans on all of these numbers i think would be very important. i disagree on one thing -- i think finally, the national debt and deficit and spending actually is becoming the issue or one of the top two issues for the current political environment and may be the presidential campaign. we are talking about it a lot, and the s&p downgrade certainly had something to do with that

also. guest: i agree that federal taxes are fairly low at this point, but the part -- part of the problems that the money you do make does not go as far as it used to, it does not feel like you have much money in your pocket these days. i agree that the debt has become part of the conversation. when we have the conversation with americans, we cannot separate out the pieces. that is part of if i look at what democrats did wrong in this debate and where i would like to see more offense, the republicans wanted to split this conversation between the budget and the deficit in two different pieces. it all needs to be part of one comprehensive whole. it is fine to talk about the debt and deficit and the things we want to do to deal with that, but when you cut spending, there is an application somewhere else. when you increase spending somewhere, there is an application somewhere else. i think we have to have a holistic complicate -- conversation about what the

impacts are. i doubt we will get to have that converersation in the context >> monday, a fact check on some of the 2012 presidential candidates. after that, susan glasser on the collapse of the soviet union. and a look at how medicare has changed over the past 45 years. that is live at 7:00 a.m. here on c-span. >> today on "newsmakers," education secretary arne duncan talks about how other countries prepare students for jobs. >> jobs are going to go where

the knowledge workers are. we are not contending for jobs in our districts. we are competing for jobs with india, china, south korea, singapore. our children are smart, talented, entrepreneurial. i want to give them a chance to compete on a level playing field. i want to give them a chance to be successful. other countries are out- educating us. >> you can see the entire interview on "newsmakers" today at 6:00 p.m. on c-span. it is also available online at c-span.org. >> it is a country fraught with corruption and islamic extremists. >> these assassinations were welcomed and congratulated by many pakistanis.

these are not terrorists, not al qaeda, not taliban. they are ordinary people who think the country is becoming too secular and islamic values are under attack and blasphemy is anything that attacks the profit or islam and something to be defended with your life. >> pamela constable tonight on c-span's "q & a." >> watch more video of the candidates. see what political reporters are saying and track political contributions with c-span.org's web site for campaign 2012. it helps you navigate the political landscape with candidate by the fis and the latest polling data, plus data--

with candidate biographies and the latest polling data. >> michele bachmann held a town hall meeting in myrtle beach, south carolina and why medicare and medicaid need to be changed. this was on a three day bus tour in south carolina. runs a local over one hour.

>> there is no doubt that anyone here would have any problem with having michele bachmann in the white house in january of 2013. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you.

thank you for coming. we are so glad you are here. hey, everybody. hey myrtle beach, south carolina. we are all on vacation. let's give a big cheer for myrtle beach. you would think this was an election night victory party. hey, you are all invited. who is ready to make barack obama a one-term president. [applause] we have got our mission. we have our marching orders. all we have do is make it happen. we have wonderful people with us here today. please have a seat. i know is warm.

we have some great dignitaries with us here today. if i do not mention your name, please raise your hands. we have a state rep. where are you, nelson? there he is, right over there. hi, nelson. we see you. we have a councilman. we know he is here. we have north myrtle beach county woman -- councilwoman doris williams. we have randal wallace. and we have the myrtle beach tea party chairman.

you are the man, joe. we are glad that you are here. are there any other local dignitaries? you are all dignitaries as far as i am concerned. we are glad you are here. >> carolina patriots. conservative group. >> we have realty in our midst, as far as i am concerned. -- we have royalty in our midst, as far as i am concerned. we have neighbors who drove all the way from minnesota. the county school board. thank you. we're glad that you are here. we have my former law school classmate over here. hello, lenore.

it is good to see you. [applause] during mcdaniel -- jerry mcdaniel is here. he is a p.r. person for the myrtle beach tea party. i would say you are pretty good at what you do. we are surrounded by dignitaries. there is another one right here. ehe county vice chair for tha county gop. thank you for what you are doing. we're all going to come together in 2012 and make it happen right here in myrtle beach. this is the center of the universe, myrtle beach, where we take the country back. [applause] i like the sound of that. we want to remember it in the middle of the joy we have

today, that it is fitting and proper that we mention someone who is also a great hero and dignitary. the flags today are at half staff in myrtle beach in honor of those who died on tuesday in a line of duty. join me for one moment. father, we thank you for this brave man, the fire chief here in myrtle beach. we ask that you do with his family, friends, and loved ones. thank you for the service he has given to this local community. we ask they would honor his memory. for all of those were first responders and serving our nation in a line of duty region in the line of duty, be with them now -- for all of those who

are first responders and serving our nation in the line of duty, be with them. amen. i feel like i am on vacation being in myrtle beach now. i am glad to be here. i am thankful you are ready to take the country back. we're seeing this all aacross the united states america. i have announced my candidacy to be the next president of the united states of america. [applause] by the way, you may not know, but my name is michele bachmann and i intend to be the next president of the united states of america. [applause] you may have heard last saturday that there was a little election in iowa and i was the number one winner in the iowa straw poll last week. [applause] we were thrilled.

the victory was even more stunning than what was reported. i had only been a candidate for 49 days in that election happened. there were numerous candidates who spent several years in iowa and millions of dollars in the very sophisticated ground game. our 49 days included the day i announced and the day of the straw poll. i spent about half of the time in washington fighting against the premise that barack obama should be given another $2.4 trillion in a blank check to spend. marchinge that your orders were that it was time to stop giving him money to spend that we do not have. that is why i said "do not raise the debt ceiling."

raising the debt ceiling means we will go out and borrow more money that we do not have. that will set us up for failure. that is exactly what happened. we did not have to default. we could have paid the interest on the debt. that is the plan i offered. then make sure you pay the men and women in the military doing the work for us. i thought it was reprehensible when the administration answered questions of our brave men and women overseas serving in the military. when they asked if they would get paid, the answer was we do not know if you will get paid. under president bachmann, our men and women will always be paid in the military. always. [applause]

the president also indicated that maybe senior citizens would not be getting their social security checks in august. i was all over ireland. i talked to senior citizens -- silence -- i was all over i was talking to senior citizens who said they canceled their cable and internet because they did not know if they would get their checks. you do not do that to senior citizens of the united states. you respect them. [applause] there is no question that we cannot continue the level of spending we have in this country. do we have many social conservatives in this audience? [applause] we do. is good to see you. do we have any fiscal conservatives? [applause] i kind of thought so. do we have any national security conservatives? [applause] any tea party conservatives in

this audience? [applause] the roof is coming down. that is good to know. let me show you how bad it has gotten in washington, d.c. school is coming. let's have our first lesson. my goodness. i have to apologize. i have to confess that i did not bring my teleprompter with me when i came to myrtle beach today. [applause] you have never seen a president , havet his teleprompter as you? in the bachmann white house, ompters.ll be no teleprinter there are also known czars in that bus. there will be no czars in the

bottom and white house either. .et's go back to school the day i came into the congress was january of 2007. does anyone know how much national debt we had accumulated a question mark how much money did rio as a country? yes, sir. you are good. i knew they were smart in south carolina, but you take the cake. thousands, millions, billions, and trillions. no one tell barack obama what comes after trillions. [laughter] do i have your word on that? ok, good. it is a whole new set of numbers. it hass how much money i

taken our nation from the time we passed the constitution until the time i came into office. it is $8.67 trillion that we accumulated in debt we owe it that we have to pay back. after we made the decision to give barack obama a $2.7 billion as a blank check in exchange for cuts, how much do we owe now? $14 trillion. [making a buzzer sound] $16 trillion? get ready. hold onto your hats. here we go. this is what we of today -- owe today.

it took us 219 years to accumulate over $8 trillion in debt. it to gus four years to almost double its -- it took us four years to almost double it. do you see why i fought so hard? i was one of the lone voices in the wilderness of washington saying we had to stop. we cannot do this anymore. we have to change the premise. we cannot just do what they do year after year and time after time. that is to take the credit card and lift the limit. why in the world if you make $50,000 a year and start spending money and by june the $50,000 is gone -- some foolish

bank decides to give you another 50,000 are to get you through the yerest of the year d you spend it all. then you come to the end of the year. are you better off than you were before? you are worse off than before because you owe the $50,000 but you also zero the interest on the debt. that is what has happened to the country. imagine you did this year after year. pretty soon the sheriff would knock on your door and take your furniture and put it at the end of the driveway. if you were in business, you close your doors. he would be done. you have to pay your bills. the irs does not take kindly to not paying your debt. neither do the vendors. they would be there to take what you have and sell it.

the united states of america is no different. we have voted ourselves a lifestyle that we cannot possibly afford. the day of reckoning has come. stock-market slide 1500 points in one day. we lost the credit rating of the united states. the aaa credit rating went down to aa plus. we're not done. we have more lessons. bring that back. young man, we are not done. we have more to learn. the credit rating went down for the first time in american history. we made it through the depression without losing our credit rating. we made it through world war ii , korea, vietnam, 9/11 and never

lost the credit rating. but we have not been able to make it through barack obama without losing the credit rating. that is one more reason why we need to of an election night victory party here in myrtle beach. [applause] with your help, that is 6-what we're going to do. by the way, i am buying. -- with your help, that is exactly what we're going to do. by the way, i am buying. i had better ask my husband first. how much did all of us pay into taxes this year? $2.4 billion. that is very close. it is $2.20 trillion. once again, we will get the scary numbers out.

hundreds, thousands, millions, billions. now trillions. all of us together cent of our money in and paid in $2.2 trillion. we all worked very hard this year. we paid in $2.2 trillion. how much of this to congress spend? very good. you got up early. we spent every bit of it. we spent all of that. i thought that was going to create the jobs. where are the jobs? here is the problem. we spent more than that. this is how much more we spent. then we will add it all up and take a look at that.

tell me what you think. here we are. not only did we spend every bit of the $2.2 trillion, we spent $1.5 trillion more just this year for a total of $3.7 trillion. we're going to have to cut our town hall short because you all have to go out and get another job. you have to get another job. somebody has to pay those bills. that is the problem. where do you go to get your second job? unemployment is a little troublesome right now. what did barack obama say was the solution to jobs? trillion dollars stimulus. we have to borrow more money from countries like china. we have to spend it on all these government projects. let me tell you what happens. do you wonder where the money went?

$1 trillion, you should be able to find it somewhere. you should be able to find jobs somewhere. i cannot find jobs. i do not know where they are. let me tell you what they did do. by the way, they tell me we are in recovery. does it feel like recovery? it feels an awful lot like recession. at the very beginning of the recession, there was one federal employee in the department of transportation that made $170,000 a year. 18 months into the recession, there were 1690 employees in the department making over $170,000 a year. special?t that that is amazing. that did not seem to get us jobs. maybe they do not have the formula right.

the president said what the problem was. he said the whole problem in washington right now is that darn tea party. the tea party, that is the problem with america. these tea party people believe we are taxed enough already. [applause] that is what they believe. that is our tea party. taxed enough already. i am going to let you ask the first question. here is the other thing the tea party believes. they believe you should not spend more money than you take in. what a concept. it is amazing. the wonder he is so upset with the tea party. here is the third thing the tea party believes.

they believe the government, president, congress, and supreme court should act within the limits of the constitution. [cheers and applause] no wonder the president is upset with the tea party movement. the tea party movement is right. they are right. they know and recognize that you cannot spend money that you do not have. if we start increasing taxes on job providers, we will get less jobs rather than more jobs. i understand that. i am a federal tax lawyer. that is what i did for a living. i i understand that when you increase taxes, you get less of something. when you lower taxes, you get

more of something. why are we increasing taxes on the job providers in this country when we need more jobs? it only makes common sense. i think people in myrtle beach and across the united states get that. we are fiscal conservatives who want the country to work again. we're practical, fair-minded people who believe the solutions exist and we are not alone. i have people who come up to me and say they are democrats who voted for barack obama, but they are voting for me in 2012. there is not any event i go to where i do not have an independent, to me -- come up to me to say they voted for barack obama better voting for me this time. they want to have a job.

there are no jobs. do you know how bad the and employment situation is -- unemployment stitcheriesituatio? he has failed african-american youth. african-american youth unemployment is almost 40%. kids who want a job and want to learn job skills, 40% do not have a job. that is trouble. under the move on to get the next better job? they need the beginning job. -- how do they move on to get the next better job? they need the beginning job. he has failed the hispanic youth, african-american youth, and all americans when it comes to job creation. that is what i want to do as president. my focus will be to turn the economy around. i get it. i understand what the problem is. the problem is that the

government is taxing too much money. they are spending more money than they should. that is where we began. as president, i will only introduce a balanced budgets into the congress. [applause] how many of you would like to see a balanced budget amendment to our constitution? i would. [applause] as president, i intend to lead by example. i do not need a balanced budget amendment to tell me the right thing to do. i will introduce the balanced budget from the get go because that is the right thing to do to put our fiscal house in order. we cut spending. we cut taxes on job creators. i was the first member of

congress to introduce the full repeal of obamacare in the united states congress. [cheers and applause] as president and nominee of the republican party, i will not rest until i can elect 13 more light-minded new republican senators to have a filibuster- proof majority in the senate to repeal obamacare. [applause] i was looking for 13 more jim to go into the senate. i think that might change the makeup of the united states senate. i am looking forward to it. if we have 13 more like-minded

senators, this is what we can do. i will get together with them after election night. i will pull them together and tell them that we will give the aaa credit rating back. if i was president on the day of the downgrade, this is what i would have done. i would have said two of 535 members of congress that they are coming back to washington today. this is what we're going to do. we will get the aaa credit rating back. we're going to get back. this is how we're going to do it. we're going to announce to the markets that we will not default on our interest payments on the debt. no worry of default. take it off the table. we will pay our men and women in the military. we will pay our senior citizens who are currently on the retirement system. but after that, we will reform the system. we will reform medicaid,

medicare, social security for those who are not yet on it. these are older systems. i am 55 and need a tuneup everyone's in a while. i do not know about you. we need to reform these systems and bring them up to date. we can make them better than they are. we will never cut people off. we need them to be better and more functioning because they're not working for anyone. this is what we know. no one wants to say it but it is the truth. nine years from now, we're told that the medicare hospital trust fund will be flat broke. movie "titanic." when you have a ship going into the iceberg, do you push the throttle full steam ahead?

do you want to go faster into the iceberg? that is what president obama is doing. my mother is 80. my stepfather is 87. the last thing i want to happen is for them to need a hip replacement and find out there is no money left for them to have it. i love people to much to have that. i care about people too much to have that happen. that is why obamacare is a disaster for the country. obamacare is the symbol of everything wrong in washington. we're told 800,000 jobs will be lost because of obamacare. employers will not be able to afford the cost of paying for obamacare. you are a darling. you really do get the first question. we know what president obama thinks about senior citizens.

he has are installing $500 billion out of medicare. -- he has stolen $500 billion out of medicare when we have more people needing it than ever before. i was in the white house over a month ago. we asked the president three times what his plan was to save medicare. he mumbled a little bit and did not answer the question. he finally came out and said obamacare. do you realize this is his plan for senior citizens? medicare is going to collapse. you all get to be welcomed to the world of obamacare. is that which you want? we already know how he views senior citizens. obamacare will be a disaster. this is how it will run. the president is appointed 15 people to a board.

this board will be charged with the major health care decisions across the country. do you think 15 people could make all the health care decisions for myrtle beach, south carolina? do you think 15 people could make the health decisions for those of us gathered? i want to make my health care decisions with my doctor. that is how i want to do it. [applause] the board has 15 people making all of the decisions for over 300 million americans. their job will be to say no. their job is to say no to all of you. the board will say they do not have any more money. they will say they can only

afford 10,000 of replacements in the year. they will run out by june. you are 10,001. where do you go? under a obamacare -- under obamacare, there is no right to appeal or sue. it is enforced by irs agents. that is the face of compassion. that is our future. obamacare lays the foundation for socialized medicine. as president, i will not abide socialized medicine in the united states. i will not rest until we repeal obamacare. [applause] i will not rest until we k.pealed dodd-fran

it is killing the business industry. i believe strongly in our military. my dad was in the air force. my stepdad was in the army. i have such tremendous respect and admiration for our military. as president, the number one duty is to be commander-in- chief. it is the security and safety of the american people. we love our military and stand for them. i am privileged to sit on the select committee for intelligence. we are a tiny committee. we deal with the classified secrets of the nation. i am regularly briefed on the threats the united states faces here and externally. there is not a day that goes by that there is not someone who wakes up thinking about how they're going to kill americans

today. there is not a day that goes by that someone does not wake up and think about how to destroy the united states of america today. that is why the next commander in chief needs to understand that this is a job number one of the president, the safety and security of the american people. that, i will do. [applause] i will do something very different from what our president has done. he made a grievous decision in may when he called on israel to retreat to its indefensible 1967 borders. as president, i will stand with , israel.y i will stand with israel. [applause]

the united states will again announce to the world that we asl have israel's back, every president has done since the time of harry truman. israel declared sovereignty in 1948. 11 minutes later, harry truman gest favorg he could for israel by recognizing its sovereignty. every other president has had its back until may when the president made that statement. i will stand up against america's enemies like iran that seeks to have a nuclear weapon. i will stand against a nuclear iran and a nuclear syria. [applause] the president has taken his eye off of the main event in the middle east. that is the buildup of the nuclear iran.

president ahmadinejad has said he will use in nuclear weapon to wipe israel off the map. he has said he will use it against the united states. if history has taught us anything, it is to take the threats of madmen seriously. i take them seriously. as president, this country will be respected again in the world. [applause] we have the team that absolutely cannot be beat. when you bring together fiscal conservatives, social conservatives who believe the family is the basic unit of government, that we should respect marriage, family, and national security conservatives, when we all come together under this banner -- we

must stick together. we cannot keep anyone out of our tent. we need each other. we will stand together and fight together. together, we will take back the country. we will make barack obama a one- term president. god bless you. god bless the united states. let's take some questions. [cheers and applause] cracks right her. -- >> right here. >> i am a military veteran. i want to let you know one thing. if it was not for the veterans' shed blood and all, we would not have the constitution.

do not let socialism take my country over. i am going to help you make obama a one-term president. >> city is going to make obama a one-term -- he said he is going to make obama a one-term president and he is a veteran. hold up your hand if you are a veteran, married to one, or a boyfriend, or girlfriend. thank you for what you are doing for this country. here is how we're going to do it. go to my web sitsite. go to my facebook and twitter sites. check us out on youtube. we won the straw poll in iowa. we have to win and will win the primary in south carolina. it is important we do everything we can to volunteer, give money,

organize, and come together to take the state of south carolina. south carolina determines who the next president will be. i intend to win this state twice, once in the primaries and next in the general election. this is going to be the pace car for the country, south carolina. >> what would you do to bring in the 50% of the people that do not pay any taxes at all? >> thank you for asking that question. it is unbelievable today that 53% of americans pay taxes and 47% do not. it may even be worse than that this year. this is incomprehensible. every person in this country has a stake in the success of the united states. every single person should pay

something, even if it is a dollar. everybody should pay something because we all have a stake in the success of the nation. i want to change the tax code. that is my background. i have a doctorate degree in tax law. i worked in tax court. my husband and i started our own business. i am very familiar with how the tax code kills jobs and how we create them on the other hand. i want to take the tax code that is 3.8 million words -- the irs said they could not tell us exactly how many words. that is a problem. i want to take the tax code and make it so small and simple that any american can fill out their tax return on a postcard. whether it is fair or flat, it has to be simple. i will do that in the first 100

days i am in office. >> i want to ask a question about the economy. without money coming in, you cannot pay bills. ross perot had it right years ago. he said that you take money from 1%. you start to close the gap. why we have to target unions, policeman, or some group. whether you are a shipbuilder, everybody takes 1%. we get it done. the deficit starts to shrink. you do not do anything until we have it done. >> you are talking about cutting spending. of course we have to do that.

there is not one department that should not be on the table. i think there are departments that should completely go out of the government. [applause] i am pro-education. i cut my teeth on education reform in the political world. jimmy carter created the education department as a political payoff to the unions in the 1970's. we have not seen any success stories. the billions of dollars spent have not worked. if we repeal of the federal education laws that cost the local school districts and arm and a leg with all the requirements -- congress is too happy to pass laws but will not give the money for it. get rid of it. it is not working.

i would repeal the federal education law. i would turn the lights off in the department of education and say we are done with the department of education. [applause] in three years, i would take them out of money we send to the schools. i would write a letter to the superintendents. i would say that we would get down to zero. you will not have any requirements. changer budgets accordingly. they would take that deal. it is not that hard to turn the economy around. the solutions are not hard. we have been missing somebody with backbone. behind this pink dress is a titanium spine. that is what sets me apart from all of the other candidates. we have to have a very different kind of president with a proven

track record of taking on washington. i have taken on my own party on issue after issue. i believe you put principle over party. we have to stand for the people. we have to change it. this is our tiny window of opportunity. 2012 is it. >> this is our last question. >> just a minute. look at this beautiful hair. turnaround. you are beautiful. >> thank you. we met last year at the tea party rally at the washington monument. how do you as a mother feel about texas gov. rick perry allowing someone to sell nude pictures of me?

>> i do not have information. i am sorry that i cannot answer. >> will you please check into it? >> now that you have put out here, i have no doubt it will be checked into. i know that was difficult for you to say that. i know it was very difficult. >> h.r. 5140 was the first stimulus bill. you voted yes on that. how can we trust you? >> you can trust me because of my track record in washington. that bill came out when i first came into congress. it was a bill that george bush was behind. the figure was $160 billion that was a rebate. i was told it was giving people money back. i like that idea. i like the idea of the government giving your money back to that.

the ultimate expression was it really was not giving money back to us. i paid taxes in but did not get any money back. there were people who got money who had never paid taxes in. you find out when you go to congress that you cannot believe even with your own party leadership tells you. i am not trying to castigate them. this is what i was told. we're just giving the people their money back. i thought i would rather give the money back to the people than leave it in washington for them to spend. that is why i voted for it. that is the last time i voted for a measure like that. it made me extremely skeptical of anything i heard after that. we had to do our own research on what was in the bills. i think you should read the

bills before you pass them. [applause] thank you for asking that question. i am really glad you did. it is an example of what happens all the time in washington. it is pathetic. do i think members of congress should have term limits and caps on salaries? we have been putting a cap on salaries and rightly so. the american people are not seeing wage increases so neither should the members of congress. that is where we are at now. there are no term limits in congress. to do that, it would be a constitutional amendment. it is difficult to do. the people writing the laws are not necessarily the ones interested in having term limits. some states have done that. some states have looked at term limits. some members have voluntarily term limited and said they would

go. the people who usually term- limit are the fiscal conservatives we want in washington. it is never the big spenders that term limit out. it is a big problem. congress had an internal rule that the committee chairs are term limited. we passed some of our own rules as republicans. we do term-limit the committee chairs. it helps, but it is not the solution. pardon? i think the bill has been introduced. it has not gone anywhere. pardon? >> [inaudible]

>> well, my opinion on term limits is that i think it is important for the voters to make that decision. that is the ultimate term limits. they have, especially in the last election. they have made that decision. my only concern with term limits is that arizona has term limits on state representatives and senators. when you are in for just a few years, the bureaucracy runs the state. that is what i have been told. one thing i do not want to do is empower the bureaucracy because they already have a lot of power as it is. i want to cut back the bureaucracy. we need to have members of congress do the right thing. that is what we need. is the same with the president. we need someone who does the right thing. they are telling me we have got to go. i want you to know i love you. i care about you.

how i am thankful you came. thank you for your patience in the heat. together, we will secure the promise of the future for the next generation and take the country back in 2012. god bless you all. thank you for coming. i love you. [applause] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪

"little less conversation"] ♪ ♪

♪

♪ feel good"] ♪

♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪

♪

♪ calle

"a little less conversation"] ♪ >> c-span is monitoring al jazeera english for some of the latest developments in libya. you can see coverage from benghazi and tripoli. rebel forces have reportedly surrounded and taken control of some of the towns and suburbs

just outside the capital to overthrow libyan leader muammar gaddafi. let's take a look and listen for a moment. quickly recap what we're seeing on our tv screens. you took part in the uprising. you have intimate knowledge of what we're seeing. on the left is benghazi. on the right is tripoli. >> those are amazing pictures. i see freedom in benghazi and the streets of tripoli. these are the moments the libyan people have been waiting for for a long time. it is a great moment for the libyan people and freedom. >> this is some coverage coming to us from al jazeera english. the associated press is reporting that a rebel leader says the son of muammar gaddafi has been arrested. has been arrested.