change in the world and make sure that our children are not economic slaves on a virtual plantation, we to go after the banking families and expose them and tell them that the emperor really has no clothes. host: mr. ambassador? guest: all the member states are contributing. each parliament is called upon to approve the bailout. on the other hand germany is benefiting from a single market. a strong economy in germany

benefits a lot from that kind of situation, so i think that, you know, it's a share -- country come to a solution. for a financial transaction tax. and i think the underlying reasoning on his side is to say so far in the last few years, taxpayers have contributed with aid and guarantees at the level of almost $6 trillion in europe. we believe it's time for the banking sector to make a small droiks helping readdress the financial state, and that's the direction in which we're trying to move forward. host: next caller comes from bethany, louisiana. hi tomas. caller: good morning. i had watched one of our news

programs like "60 minutes" or "20/20," one of those. and one of the interviews from -- on that program was talking to one of the government officials right there in greece. in the back of a yacht. and he was asking him what are you going to do about your tax problems? and that was mainly coming from whether taxes would get paid or not to levy the correct amount of tax on the individuals that had so much and so much money. and it was causing stress to the government, and this was at the first part of the falls of the economy here in the united states and around the world. so if they don't straighten that up, i know our tax policies here. it gets us middle class and

lower middle class people rather -- they are rather vigorous coming out there with tax money. it just seems like someone could do something about that, doesn't it? host: mr. ambassador? guest: well, tax solutions are part of the mix of the solution we are looking at in europe and certainly in greece. you see the increase in the taxation any citizen that pays for any merchandise or good, and this has an impact on people middle class and everyone. and there's one point i would like to make. public finances are not something alien to the population. they determine the level of competitiveness of the country and the level of confidence in markets in a given economy. so it's very important to we

want to have -- and i'm talking about europe. if we want to have a sustainable country in the next years, we need to do that on the basis of a clean sheet in terms to have financial and budgetary situation. this is the only way the markets will believe in european economy. this is the only way to have the guarantee of investors' confidence and consumer confidence in our economy. host: david in london, kyi. please go ahead with your question for the e.u. ambassador. caller: good morning, ambassador. in 1919, john published "the economic consequences of the peace" in which he predicted the treaty or that the situation with germany would eventually come to war again, and shortly thereafter, it did. obviously we had world war ii.

and -- was dubbed a genius, and sickal fans had been populating western government ever since, and isn't that really the root of our problem? canesian economics? guest: well, that's an intense and vibrant discussion among economists. there's as much discussion in the u.s. as in europe and i don't think we are here on an academic debate. what i would like to underline is that in europe, we are looking at all the tools available to ensure a sustainable recovery. and that implies, as i said earlier, a policy mix. it's not more investment in state but coupled with major reforms. it has to do with regulation

and closed sectors of the economy where we need to have more competition. and in the u.s. as i understand correctly, there are many jobs open, and companies cannot find the right people, the right skills, because there is a gap in what the markets need in terms of qualifications and what we are producing out of our schools and out of our training center. so we have to address all these. some of them have roots in -- and others in schools of other economic thought. we cannot afford to limit ourselves to one school of thought. we need pick the right tools and the right instruments as they are available. host: ambassador the unemployment rate is 9.6%. can you give us an idea of what

the unemployment is in europe? host: we move from 10.2% to 10%. if we compare to the u.s., we are basically on the same level. we tend to believe that if we apply european criteria in the u.s., the numbers in the u.s. will be slightly higher than they are today. but that's besides the point. i believe we are at the same level of unemployment, which is not good news, of course. maybe we are more used to it than you are. europe we have been used to not this kind of type of employment, but 7%, 7.6%. 7.8%. it is not the case for the u.s. so observing the u.s. as i am for more than a year, i see that there's some difficulty in the u.s. to accept some level of unemployment.

but the question is how much of this is structural unemployment? it's very difficult to redress and change the situation. it has to do with come pattiveness of our quality and so this is a major issue. that's why i say that this is not only about redressing public finance. this is about doing that together with measures that allow us in three, four, five years time to have a sustainable return. you are capable of giving jobs to our children and grandchildren in the future. host:en st. petersburg, florida, tomas, you're on the air. caller: good morning. i'm very happy with the quality of the questions this morning, but it's probably going to drop a few points now. i was wondering what can the european union do against disaster capitalism?

the people that would profit from the collapse. and if such things are going on where people are undermining the process and preventing a smooth running society in order profit from them, how do we protect ourselves from capitalism turning into cannibalism. >> well, i don't want the capitalized on your hash words. but we believe our -- i think our values of democracy, individual freedom, rule of law, human rights, they have been followed throughout world i had an think the globalization process of the last 20 years has proved that people around the world want to join us in respecting this kind of way. now one can comment on

exceptions here and there. referring to the banking sector solution to the crisis, i think there's clearly a debate about how much each of us should contribute. and inside the g-20, inside the u.s. to redress and resign financial regulation goes a lot into the direction of saying some things that happened that somehow provoked this crisis should not happen again. and that has to be done through an international level, but especially between us and the u.s. in reforming regulation. host: what happens if each of the e.u. countries approve of this plan? guest: well, first of all, i think they will in a matter of a few weeks. we hope to have this plan approved, and in doing so, voters will provide us with new

mechanisms to deal with this crisis. and returning to athens, the european central bank and international monetary funds and my colleagues are there discussing the greek authorities. i hope that will not lead to an outcast of the discussions so so we will continue on this track. once we have this package approved, we -- in implementing it, i think there's also room there for us to be creative ant maximizing the impact of the new financial means available. trying to optimize the use of this. and there are a few ideas being discussed in order to make the most out of this. host: do you have confidence that the greek citizens will pay the new taxes that have been proposed far nation >> well, i think it's part of

the process. >> greek swailingses, particularly those under this kind of package, too, realize the future lies in the process of restructuring the economy and reforming the economy and redressing the balance of their financial issues. so there is no -- not that many alternatives to this. and what we're seeing in europe in this, greece included, is people, if you look at parliament, this has been approved with difficult dugs and demonstrations in the street, but this is democracy. we have to expect that people are entitled to express their views. the fact that in portugal, they are applying in a rigorous way the program of reforms and have a backing for the government action. i think all this encourages us

in pursuing on this track. host: next caller from arizona, steve, you are on the air with ambassador joao vale de almeida. caller: i was going to say maybe we're using this word crisis a little too loosely. it seems we have been having this debt crisis problem for years and years and it's not really a crisis but a propaganda. it seems we've all had this debt crisis thing going on for years and years and if there really was a crisis, wouldn't we be a little more concerned about stpwhit guest: well, we can discuss the word. we can discuss the magnitude of the problem whether or not they deserve to be called a crisis. what i see is that this is affecting the people, and when i see the levels of unemployment in the u.s. and in

the european union, we need to be worried, because this is the lives of people. people staying 6-10 months out of a job. this is worrying. governments on both sides of the atlantic are reflecting that level of concern. we are not afraid of words. we are saying that this is a serious crisis and we are not complacent about it and we are taking measures to rectify the situation. host: our last caller comes from pennsylvania. hi george. caller: hi. there was a report done by bloomberg, and the [inaudible] in 2008 we didn't actually -- bailing out citigroup and things like that. we actually spent about $5

million more loaning or giving money to european banks like the world bank of scotland got billions. roughly $21 million per employee. london barclays a.g. bank got $66 billion. and others like belgium. host: hey, george, what's your question or point? caller: my point is the e.u. along with the c.f.h. and e mission has -- host: do european countries, mr. ambassador, have

sovereignty? guest: of course we have sovereignty. the book -- elected by the german people whether they agreed to support the changes and the ms. s, this is democracy in action. we're north doing anything zpwevpks the city. against the citizens. all leaders are especially elected and all are accountable to aen elected government. there's an issue about this country, 27 countries realizing that they can sort out their problems. that they can actually handle this situation better than if they act alone. all of this to come out of their crisis if we work together and cooperate as we have been doing on a number of occasions. this has been the main message i would like to convey to you

and the u.s. complex situations, there are no quick fixes for it. but we will come out better if we do it together. host: and finally did you see george soros' comments how to stave off another great de legislation? the sworled being driven towards another great depression. the authorities in europe have lost control of the situation and he proposes three steps including common treasury for the euro zone. guest: i agree with him that the situation is serious and a crisis and needs to be addressed. when he stays authority has lost control, i don't think that's the case. on the contrary. if it's sometimes when you need to be ambitious, and this is a moment in which you need to be ambitious if you want to deepen

economic integration, some of these measures may require a change in our treaties which are sort of a constitution in europe. it's not exclusive. it's a it's a matter for the banks today. host: the european union ambassador to the united states, joao vale de almeida thank you for being on the "washington journal." one more segment it's our america by the number segment. today we'll be looking at what we produce. we'll be right back. >> always start with the assumption that when a politician or c.e.o. is saying something, they are not telling you the truth. they may be, but the burden should be on them to prove it. >> he is an ealing scout,

directed and produced three of the top 10 grossing documentaries of all time and also a best-selling author. his latest a memoir "here comes trouble," sunday your chance to call and tweet michael moore on book tv on c-span 2. >> less than a year after d.i.a.'s creation, it faced its first great test when the cuban mistal crisis brought the world to the edge of war. >> this week marks the 50th anniversary of the defense intelligence agency. the director of the d.i.a. advises the secretary of the joint chief. learn moreline at the c-span video library. all archived and searchable. it's washington your way. now get regular updates of

what's on the c-span networks with c-span now on twilter. get tweets once an hour including what's on and go to twitter.com/c-spannow and get latest on what to watch on espn, espn2 and espn3 now on twitter. which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you? that's our question in this year's student cam competition. make a video documentary five minutes long and tell us what's important to you be sure to include the video and -- there's $50,000 in total prizes and grand prize of $5,000. for all the details go to student cam.org. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: well, we're pleased to introduce you to steve landefeld the director of the bureau of economic analysis, and this is our america by the numbers series, and today it's what we produce. first of all, mr. steve landefeld, what is the bureau of economic analysis? give us some background. >> it's one of the two agencies thattistical agencies. our big sister is the census bureau. we put together data from public and private sources and assemble it into -- we think of ourselves as an economic account. and we put anytime a set of double entry accounts for the u.s. economy. host: so one of those statistics you all create is g.d.p. guest: right. host: what is g.d.p. k35c9ly and how is it measured? guest: the gross domestic

product is the overall economic activity including consumer spending and investment by the private and business sector and the net of what we consume exports minus imports. currently it's about $5 trillion, and it's -- it's about $15 trillion and the mac daddy of the -- >> why the change? and is there still the g.n. snment >> yes. it includes, however, our net earnings abroad. and while it's an important concept in terms of -- it doesn't role reflect the production in the united states. so the globalization going to g.d.p. as our feature measure. >> did other countries use our same measures as the bureau of economic analysis? >> yes. one of the beauties of g.d.p.

or national accounting as it is called more broadly is a system of national accounts which is essentially accounting guidelines. we have them in the public sector and all nations follow and produce national accounts according to those guidelines . host: ok. there are some charts that we want to show you. this is components of real g.d.p. according to the bureau of economic analysis consumption makes up 71% of g.d.p. exports make up 13% of g.d.p. government spending, 21% of g.d.p. and investment 12% of g.d.p. if you could walk us through those four elements of what makes up the g.d.p. >> about 70% of g.d.p. is included spending on durable and non-durable goods.

things like tv's and automobiles. host: doesn't matter where they are produced? guest: no. we net that out later in the computation of g.d.p. but it's what we spend and then we have non-durable goods, which is your clothing and those sorts of things, and then we have services which is the largest component of consumer spending which is you're spending on your education, movies, the whole range of medical care and other services. host: so that all comes under consumption which is 70% of the economy. guest: yes, and things likes plant and equipment and exploration expenditures for oil wells as welt as spending on things like software and other instangibles that we

measure. >> also the goods and services abroad. then finally the government piece. i should note when we talk about this share of government, we are talking about actual government spending on goods and services. the amount of money taken in in taxes and transfered in through other programs are considered transfer host: so social security and medicare would not be part of g.d.p.? >> no. >> and when they pay federal salaries, it is. host: so that's government spending. currently government spending makes up 21% of our g.d.p. has

that figure grown over the last years? you've been director of b.a. since 1995. since then, how has that figure trended? guest: for example when we track total government spending and outlays you see a bigger increase. that's what most people tend to focus on. it's about 25% which is a record high. host: we're going to put our numbers on the screen if you would like to talk to steve landefeld, he is the director of bureau of economic analysis. we have divided them regionally. 202-737-0001 if you live in the eastern or central time zone and for the mountain and pacific time zone you can call

202-737-0002. you have a chart here, growth and g.d.p. and standards of living. now, this begins in 1929 and charts the national growth of g.d.p. up through year and it's the highest it's tpwhn our history. what i wanted to ask you about, steve landefeld, is this almost expo innocencal exponential growth that kicks off in the mid 1970's. what happened? guest: part of what you're seeing is when you have small numbers, you're going to get that kind of growth. where you do see the

significance in terms of growth, the post world war ii era was an extraordinary era for the u.s. and world growth throughout. host: but when you look here and you can see our g.d.p. almost doubled. guest: i should point out in the 1970's we did have a rampup in inflation, so people tend to look at real or inflationary g.d.p. what was the figure you put out zed guest: we put out an estimate of g.d.p. which was out within a month to the end of the

quarter which was one of the most timely g.d.p. estimates in the world. we put it out relevant to the decision making but that will get revised when we get more data. in some components we -- we revise it when we get more complete data. so 1.0% to 1.3%. we go through those previsions in the u.s. as we get more complete data. the one thing we do guarantee our customers is the general picture of economic activity will not change. when we tell you it is expanding or contracting, the components is growth. host: so you always send out a revised g.d.p. >> the budget and federal

projections of it? the policy is based on our g.d.p. estimates and it's quite important, because our estimates trend growth, and some things are more important than policy decisions, for example, we have a chart which shows the effect of a half a percentage point and if we're off by a.50%, then federal deficit over the long-term budget planning horizon is going to be off by over on the order of $1.5 trillion. host: if you're off by one half of a percentage point? guest: yes. host: i don't have that chart. do you have it? here. if you could explain to this to our viewers. this is a federal budget deficit projection.

guest: that is the cumulative error you will get if it's off by a half a percentage point. host: so the error could be worth half a billion? guest: yes. total is a trillion dollars. so when we talk about the deficit reduction discussions we're having, you begin to see the baseline numbers to governmental planning. host: you have wall street care? guest: yes. $170 billion worth of household and business assets that are controlled through consumer expectations, household expectations and exchange

rates. so it's all affected. the federal reserve, these are some of the measures they use for their policy. it affects the funds. host: so how is it that g.d.p. is tied to the allocation of federal snunds if they want to spend x amount of dollars on this federal program, what does your economic analysis have to do with that? guest: most are allocated by something called the asmath formula using the state personal income and because we take it and break it down. host: so it provides the formula? guest: it provides the numbers that go into the formula. i like to think of it as providing the tool kit for

public and private decisions. host: i want to ask you about this chart recessions and real g.d.p. you have the chart that shows the great depression, 1930's, negative 27.7%. post world war ii average on recessions, negative 2.0% drop in g.d.p., is that correct? guest: right. host: and currently from 2007, the current quarter through 2009 second quarter, 2en.0%. guest: i think when the g.d.p.

declined over a four-year period by 27% and the unemployment was above 25. host: steve landefeld is our guest the director of the bureau of economic analysis and this is our segment, america by the numbers. ruth, you're first up. go ahead. caller: good morning, fellows. host: hi. caller: i've been looking into trying to understand this whole thing. the chart is really interesting. one thing i haven't been able to understand is how financial services and things like when people are paying their credit card debt off, where does interest and principle show up in g.d.p., if at all? guest: your interest payments show up in g.d.p. the interest in our home and housing and services numbers.

that's where those payments show up. because we're always recording what you pay and what the business or other individuals nearn terms of interest, because we have the double entry sets of accounts. host: next call for steve landefeld comes from massachusetts. hi, anthony. caller: hi, good morning. host: please go ahead. caller: yes, the chart you had earlier where you showed g.d.p. and with the adjusted inflation, i'm just wondering what model has been used to calculate the inflation? because there's the old model and the up in recent model. the old model used to calculate all the u.s. dollars in the system. the new model we only calculate the u.s. dollars in the united states and our select territories. so it's more -- we're more dishonest and askewed today than we were in the numbers before and after world war ii, because that's all in the old model, but once you get around

2005, 2006, when they really start kicking over, why would we change the way we calculate it? well, it gives a more favorable view of it, because if you use the old model and calculate all u.s. dollars in the world we're more at 21% unemployment instead of 9%. guest: we have used the same model for g.d.p. over time, so i'm unaware what you're speaking of in terms of a difference. host: have we used the same model? guest: the model we used domestic versus international models goes back to the 1950's we have made other updates, of course, you have to. in the way we calculate g.d.p. to better adjust for quality, there's been a major effort,

but perhaps what the viewer is talking about is the affect in terms of trade, and we do publish command g.d.p. which will give you a notion of how the nation's purchasing power goes up and down. host: now are all these charts available at b.e.a..gov? guest: a lot of them are available through our press releases and others in business. we can certainly put them up on our director's page if anyone wants to access that. host: indiana, you're on. caller: first, the chart you had at first seemed to add up to more than 100%. i was wondering how you reconcile that and how do you

account for things like degradation like when the exxon valdez sank g.d.p. in aalaska went up because of the cost of recovery. host: thank you, john. guest: good catch. you must be an account yourself. what i left out of that chart is imports. they are counted as a negative in g.d.p., because they are not domestic production. and we measure it by final sales. with respect to your second question of degradation of the environment, that's an issue that's been kicking around citizens u.s. accounts were founded in the great depression in the 1930's, and yes, indeed, people recognize the founder of the, that that is a net

deduction that should be taken against production, and just as we depreciate and use capital in production, we should do the same for natural resources. the difficult thing is how do weness economics of pollution? most oil wells are not bought or sold or developed by the companies themselves so, there's no price we can put on those things but something the bureau has worked on in the past, but at the current time while we have some work ongoing to improve our infrastructure for energy accounting, we have no plans for expand accounts. host: demarle detroit. you're on. >> i have a comment and then a couple questions caller: i'm really interested in the fact that they switched from mainly reporting g.n.

foment g.d.p. i noticed you hadn't mentioned -- the [inaudible] the world is going through. i know we have not run a balanced trade since 1974 in this country. so -- that is not included. if we want to run a 3% gross domestic product increase, [inaudible] the reason i ask is because we're talking about 50,000 manufacturing jobs, and it seems to me if the right number were -- if more -- was imported -- instead of one day and disappear, people would realize what -- in this country. guest: i'm sorry. we do adjust and de duct

imports. for example, for 2010 we deducted $2.4 trillion in imports to account for our g.d.p. it's a financial concept or an income concept as well. but you're correct. we should and we do de duct imports. host: is g.n.p. always larger than g.d.p.? guest: yes, because we tend to have a surplus. host: what's n.r. inflation rate? is that something you mest measure? guest: the bureau of economic analysis is the official measurer for inflation, but we do put out a protect thely used numbers which is a personal

consumption expenditures which is quite similar to the c.g.i. in the second quarter it grew at a 3.3% rate if we exclude food and energy, it grew at a 2.3% annual rate. host: and you break that down between services, goods, durable goods and non-durable goods. guest: yes. host: does bureau of economic analysis decide if we're in a recession or not? guest: no. the n.b.r. discuss it and frankly we're glad they do, because it's a very political decision and best left to external people rather than people within the government. host: good morning. you're on with steve landefeld. caller: good morning.

i was wondering if any of his statistics gather the commonwealth like puerto rico. do you factor in what they produce and buy or sell? and also do you consider illegal immigrants and what they bring or take from the table? host: thank you. guest: the answer is u.s. g.d.p. does not include puerto rico. but we currently have a project funded by the department of interior in collaboration with puerto rico where we're trying to come one a consistent methodology for puerto rico. we spend a lot of time, because we also do the u.s. balance of payments where we have to track those flows and immigrant spending sent back home yes, we measure it in the u.s. balance of payment. host: good morning. caller: i was thinking if you

pressed your chaurts in ounces of gold instead of dollars, wouldn't they be flat? guest: well, ugh, we don't youzhny particular commodity pricing in great part because they are so volatile, and your picture will tend to vary dramatically depending upon the basis of your -- which is one reason why in general the u.s. and other countries have gotten away from fixed weight industries or in the example you use a commodity. host: steve landefeld, i guess i expected one of those four quadrants of g.d.p., which you have to be manufacturing. how come? >> actually, we do estimate it, but it's in a different component. g.d.p. is sliced and diced in many different ways. we do it by industry which is

where manufacturing would come up. host: as a shared g.d.p. does that mean also that manufacturing itself has declined in the united states? guest: no. it's grown, but as a shared activity, particularly services has been so large that it has outweighed that. plus, you have productivity growth which would explain some of the differences when you look at those relative to output. host: we've got this tweet by joe, remember, you're measuring production not the spending. do you understand that? guest: yes. i do. except the answer is we do it all different ways. we measure it by the production measure, which is where you get the manufacturing measure you talked about, service. then we measure by spending on products, then we measure by the incomes earned from selling those products. so we actually measure g.d.p.

in three different ways n which in concept should be identical but because of different sources we measure it and it varies quarter-to-quarter. host: steve in chicago. go, please. caller: hi, steve. you mentioned if your g.d.p. estimate is off by a half a percentage then the government's budget can be off by as much as a trillion dollars or more. so when they are making that budget, do they maybe nut a buffer for a half a percentage wrong on your g.d.p.? guest: a half a percent error is in our trend of growth for g.d.p., so it's a persistent error. and they budget each year a table of -- it shows the

alternative of economic assumptions including trend growth and g.d.p. and differences in our price index used in g.d.p. and other variables. host: portland, oregon, hi, you're on with steve landefeld, director of the bureau of economic analysis. caller: hey, good morning. i notice the caller, i think it was three callers back asked the question what is the -- do you track the amount of money that illegal immigrants spend versus sending back home. i was curious do you also track the amount of money the -- that our country spends in terms of -- guest: we have state and local

spending by the -- with a we -- host: for justice tweets in our growing debt has or soon will exceed g.d.p., and there is a growing chance of a decline in g.d.p. in ensuing years. i guess and he's or she is asking you for a prediction. guest: as head of a thattistical agency, we have now enough troublely say that yes that the u.s. debt federal debt is approaching g.d.p. i think it's around 80-plus percent. host: but annual g.d.p. guest: i would remind viewers you're comparing stock to

nbling so those are two different sets of statistics, juan balance sheet and the other a flow. and we find that recoveries, as the recovery we're experiencing now, do tend to be slow when you're recovering from a major reduction in debtor financial bubble, and we actually have a chart there, you have anytime your hand. it confronts the elements we're confronting. the green line was the increase in wealth we saw over time. the red line is what happened to our savings. we were getting so much in terms of depreciation of stock prices and the equity in our homes that we sort of cut back on saving out of current income. what did we do? we spent it on consumption. well, then we had conference assumption and the recession

and the sharp drop in housing prices. a as a result, there was a major reduction in household wealth of about 20%. and in those kind of as far ases and then i found through the research it shows slow growth at first then faster growth later on. host: next call for steve landefeld of the bureau of economic analysis. caller: good morning. my question is what i was curious about is does the g.d.p., the money we lend to other countries, the percentages on the interest rate, is that also counted in g.d.p.? and if so, let's say, like, in 1975, we lent russia a billion dollars. and then in 1995 we turn around

and we forgive them the debt. wouldn't that make the g.d.p. from the scale you're doing, wouldn't it make it incorrect? therefore, you're basing it upon the interest rate you're getting from that country, then all of a sudden 10 years later that debt has been forgiven. wouldn't that make it kind of a scale that's incorrect? >> we have a comprehensive accounting system, so we have anytime our accounting and all those write-downs which would be reflected in the balance sheet then the income components would be reflected in our balance of payment account flows and g.d.p. and g.d.p. statistics. so we do capture those, and i don't think there's any bias because of the coverage. host: mr. steve landefeld you have been the director in

bureau of economic analysis. but your background, did you not work for the bush one white house? is that -- how do you keep politics out of b.a.e. -- b.e.a. in your analysis? getting pressured to put things in your analysis? guest: in my time as director of b.e.a., we really have had no political pressure. indeed i recall an instance where we had to change an update which lowered the rate going into a political discussion and that was raised by the director brown and he said if it's the right thing to do, do it. 1c0 there's a lot of perceptions of pressure, but in reality we don't. and we are an all professional organization.

i'm career civil service and everyone who works there is and i should add now the when i was with the counsel of economic that assistics -- i -- caller: in your tenure, i think you said 1997 to the present, i'll use my example. when we get the unemployment rate, what are the comp opponents of that? non-farm payroll comes from business and then the -- in the time that you've been head of it, how much of the precision improved or not improved in coming up with, like, the g.d.p. numbers. thank you? guest: the numbers to keep up with the rapid changes in the economy -- we are constantly

trying to come up with trying to keep up with them. but there are some gaps in our data. from the business sector leveraging, it looked pretty flat. we're working very hard and the dodd frank act included some things to help us out in terms of collaboration and rdsing some of the gaps. host: how do you deal with changes to the economy, the rise of the internet? i mean, how do you create new measures? >> we draw private and public data. so anything out there for usage for example early on when we saw the rise and we thought it wasn't being incorporated in the normal resail source data,

we work with the census bureau, the bureau of labor standtistics. the sourcing agency. we work with them to change their surveys which they are good partners in helping us do that, but that takes time, that's why we have the luxury of being the part that deals with that. host: you had numbers that you were going to release at 9:30 a.m. what were they? guest: we showed personal income, and we showed a drop in personal income. also showed a drop in real disposable personal income and consumer spending in real terms was flat. host: do you create the

expectations when they say such and such was expected, however, the real numbers are blah? guest: well, wall street and forecasters using the same source data we do attempt to forecast. they usually do a pretty good job of forecasting. they don't have the details we do. but our estimates look fairly similar. and so they put out that expectation. and then we put out the quote official date save which is the larger endeavor and detail. >> so were your numbers in line with the expectation numbers? guest: i'm sorry. i usually know the g.d.p. expectations although they are usually pretty important because this august number is as we just talked about, consumer spending is 2/3 of the economy, so a lot of people look at it as the most recent comprehensive view of spending in this economy.

host: a final tweet for you to clarify from k.p. patao. g.d.p. is off by one half percent regularly. make you feel good? this means a trillion-dollar mistake is taken for granted. guest: i wanted to clarify that yes, our numbers do actually -- if the reader is interested, you can go to the general -- to the b.e.a. website. you can go there. host: a lot of this information is generally there. steve landefeld is the director of the bureau of economic analysis, which is part of the commerce department. thank you for being on our "america by the numbers" series. guest: thank you. host: to let all you know on book tv this weekend which is

espn2, 48 hours of non-fiction books, michael moore will be our guest at noon eastern time on sunday. michael moore is our guest. you can go to book tv.org for more information. that will be a live call-in program. his newbieography out -- his new byeography is out. "here comes trouble." thank you for joining us. goodbye. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> more live coverage coming up this morning. the retirement ceremony for admiral michael mullins -- president obama, leon panetta, and the man replies and admiral molluscs, general martin dempsey among those speaking. we may hear more about the u.s. air strike that killed the young man a cleric this morning. we may hear some comments on that in the live coverage in the retirement ceremony today. that gets underway at 11:00 a.m. eastern. later today, we will go live to darien, new hampshire where republican presidential candidate rick perry will hold his first town hall meeting at the adams memorial opera house. that is live at 6:00. he founded several liberal unions and represent the socialist party of america as candidate for president, running five times, the last time from prison. eugene debs lost but he changed

political history. he is featured in the new weekly series," of the contenders." that is tonight at 8:00 eastern. get a preview about debs and watch other videos about him at our special website for the series, c-span.org/the contenders. >> a live look at the brookings institution in washington where afl-cio president richard trumpka is about to be introduced and he will speak about jobs and the way to rebuild the u.s. economy. if you want to watch that, it is live and are companion network, cspan 2 and on line at its c- span.org. next up, presidential candidate newt gingrich yesterday in des moines, iowa when he unveiled his campaign platform which includes a repeal of the health care law allowing americans to

choose how they pay taxes and reforming the epa. this event from yesterday. this is just under one hour. at the financial services company in des moines, iowa. [applause] [applause] >> i am delighted that billy and bob ray would onerous by being here. this is important in the tradition that governor ray served the state and talk about practical reality. these are not on?

i wondered about that. [unintelligible] are they on? ok, so -- i apologize. i was a starting to say that this was in the tradition that gov. ray established when he was governor because it is an effort to lay out what we need to do in a way that we can all understand it as citizens and put it together. i and particularly glad he was willing to come and introduce me. he is a dear friend. but i did not realize until last night we were at his house that he had kept the original contract that was a tv ide. it tells you how long ago this was. it was in a tv guide. this was in the early days before cable. [laughter] every time we pass something, i would go to the floor and i would use a hole punched and i would click it.

backup is now on the so -- in the smith -- that kotb is now in the smithsonian. the only center that has written about it was senator chuck schumer a couple of years ago. he pointed out that the real purpose of the contract was a manageme document for the republican party. while it had a powerful political impact, as greg just pointed out to you, we voted on all these things in 93 days. and enabled u to say to our team, like you got here. here's what you're doing. -- glad you got here. here is what we are doing. the largest one party in creation in american history w in 1994. it we gained 9 million votes over 1990. the democrats' only lose 1 million votes. the real swing was those who never turned out before. and it was really simple. it was no tack here.

when you see advertisement in tv guide we do not aack bill clinton. we were serious. it was an adult document for .dults i if there are concerned citizens about the country, that you can treat them like adults. it is not about who has the best 30-second attack ad or who has the most clever consultant. i had been at my dadas a career soldier and spent 27 years in the infantry. we were in france when the paratroopers were killed and the gall was brought back. -- when charles de ulle was brought back. it really hit me that the country was dying without leadership. in high school and began to study three things and i've been

setting them ever since. to what does america need to do to be successful? how would you explain with sufficient clarity that the american people would want you to do it? and how would you implement it if they gave you permission? i was working as a volunteer in the reagan administration and i've worked during the bush administration. let me ask you, how many of you agree that america is on the wrong track? how many of you agree that getting back on the right track will be an enormous effort? how many of you agree that very substantial interest groups will fight deeply against cutting back on the right track? i just want to feed back to you what you have just said. this is the heart of why i am

proposing a 21st century contract with america. our challenges are enormous, i think, the biggest since 1860. the difficulty of changing direction f an enormous national government, an enormous national elite, whether it is the courts, the news media, the academic world, the bureaucracies, the laws, is when be tremendous. and there will be people who legitimately and authentically fight desperately to stop us because whether of an interest group or an ideology, they do not agree. if you are serious about saving the country and moving forward, you have got to start with that design. you have got to say, this is what we are trying to accomplish. are you trying to develop a canoe for a local creek are you trng to build a sp to cross the pacific? you better decide what size you need. this contract is designed in a

mucheeper way. there are four parts to the proposed contract. this is the one talking about today in detail. but the four parts give you a sense of scale. the first that i agree to deal with today is the legislative part. what should we pass as lot? the second, which will begin -- we will be beginning to unveil and you can see it at newt.org is called, imagine the first day. we take an hour, and for one hour i signed between 50 to 200 executive orders, fundamentally shifting the direction of the united states government before 5:00 p.m.n the first day, all within the law. that is why you have to have this stuff to change the law. but for emple, the first executive order we know for sure, abolishing all of the white house bazaar's ad of -- white house czars as o that woman. there's a lot you can do pretty

fast. reagan, for example, signed an executive order which eliminates rationing gasoline and liberate gasoline and within six months the price has collapsed. there are things you can do better decisive. third, we will need a training program for the transition team and a training program for all transitional appointees. if you want to change the scale, there's no reason to believe that normal traditional appointees have a clue what they're doing. they will run the old order and the old system. they do not know how to run this new system. and finally, this is something i say teveryone in the audience. we need a citizen-centered model that uses social media. i do not ask anybody to be for me. if you are for me. -- if you are for me, you vote and you go home and you say, i hope he fixes it. i asked people to be with me because for eight years we need to work together. we need to work together in

aligning the congress on what we need to get done. we need to work together in making sure that as things do notork and if you have the scale change, some things do not work. if you send an e-mail and have a conference call corporate dissipate in a video conference you've got to be able to say, that is not working. you have to get constant implement -- constant evolution and constant change in order to implement what you are talking about. it you cannot implement in a stable way because things change. you have to be part of that active feedback. there is another reason. if we implement the 10th amendment and return power to the states an citizens as you shrink the washington bureaucrats, if you have to grow the citizens. that means you will have more responsibility. the fourth part of this is how do we build aenuineitizens movement that is prepared to take responsibility for our

country? i think the change is so enormous -- and this is the one that i want to read to you today. this is a message abraham lincoln said mr. the congress in december of 1862. -- sends to the congress in december 1862. the civil war is not going well and things are going much harder. he said -- he writes to the congress, opened with the dogmas of the quiet past are active to this to repressive and we must rise for the occasion. as our case is new, so we must think a new and act anew. we must disenthrall ourselves and then we will save our country." i think the reason that washington is a mess is because no one is prepared to disenthrall themselves and te the risk of thinking you. let me walk you through this in great detail -- and if you want

a great deal, there is a 23-page version of this at newt.org. this is not the final document. this is -- there are two big differences between this and 1994. i could not possibly show you everything i want to do because the scale is so large. i will treat the beginning of a conversation, which by said kemba 27 of xt year, the anniversary of the contract -- september 27 of next year, the anniversary of the contract, we will show you what we are doing. the second difference is, in 1994, we stood on ronald reagan's shoulders. he had been talking about welfare reform since he first ran for governor in 1966. there were 700 pages of legislationehind that. and congressman dick armey is

doing a great job of putting that together. we do not have the advantage of 30 years of reaganism. some of the things i will describe to you we do not know how to do yet. it will take about a year to pass all of this. we have had in this current administration a stimulus package and a member had read. we had no, care so complex that speaker pelosi said you have to -- we had and obamacare so complethat speaker policy said you have to pass it in order to know what it is. that is wrong. the subcommittee's hold markups and report to the full committee. they hold marcus and the go to the floor and have a chance to amend it -- they hold mark ups and they go to the floor and have a chance to amend it. it is a much harder process. it is not ramming things

through. it is legislating. it is trying to bring to bear the intelligence of the american people to solve our problems. the first thing we need to do is to repeal obama care and we need to work towards transformation. there are all sorts of ideas in the paper at newt.org. one reason we have to repeal it is because it is a 2700 page document. you cannot repeal part of it because you cannot trust the staffs to tell you what part you are to repeal. there is a little over 10 percent of it that is really good. it is going to take a couple of months to actually pass the replacement. send, we have got to create jobs. the reagan recovery was so dramatic that in this month,

said cameron 1983, -- september of 1983 -- and he had inherited a bad economy from carter just as obama in here today that the economy from bush. -- inherited a bad economy from bush. in 1983, the american people created new jobs. reagan had a four-part plan, cut taxes, cut regulations, the american energy, praised the people who take risks and create jobs. a policy of saying, and glad you are going out to invest, i'm glad you are starting a company, i'm glad you show up every monday and run your business. a fundamentally different attitude. when i became speaker, we follow

the reagan model. the first tax cut in 16 years, the largest capital gains tax cut in history. people went back to work and back to school and cut regulations. guess what happened? in the four yea that i was the speaker, the american people created -- notice i did not say i create. i have created jobs, but i did that as a business leader, not a politician. the american people created 11 million new jobs during the time i was speake remind my good friends that is more jobs in utah, then under gov. huntsman, more jobs in massachusetts than under governor romney, and in four years, more jobs in texas than in 11 years under the governor. . -- under gov. rick perry. if you want to create jobs. i know how to it.

if you like it 1-page alternative that can be developed on the revenue neutral basis, it has been experimented on in rhode island and used in europe. it gives you a choice. you'll hear a lot about choices today. zero capital gains tax. 12.5% corporate tax rate so that we liberate this a trillion dollars locked up overseas that is currently locked up in profits that will not come home. and 12.5% will make it cheaper to pay taxes than to hire lawyers to avoid taxes. 100% expensing for all new equipment for farm equipment, factory equipment, office equipment. with the knicks -- the specific goal that we want americans to be the most, most productive workers on the planet. finally, we want to have

businesses successful, fus on job creation, t focused on tax avoidance. repeal dodd-frank immediately. it is a disastrous bill. it is 2300 pages and does to services what obama care does to health. it is killing small banks, killing small business, crippling housing, and it is creating the center of corruption at the treasury micromanaging large banks. is a terrible biele pete -- terrible bill. second, repeal sarbanes oxley. third, replace the environmental protection agency with a brand new environmental solutions agency that focuses on rationality in cooperation with kennedy's back home. frankl common sense. the best example is here at home. some people in washington who have never been on a farm are writing regulations involving

dust. writing regulation suggesting that your gross should not create dust. just look at what is senator grassley has been saying. you cannot imagine an agent that is more out of touchith reality. finally, i would replace the qana fpa with -- current fda with a 20% three food and drug administration whose specific jobs -- 21st century food and drug administration with specific job is fundamentally opposite of the current fda. if you want to create jobs, help the biggest economy in the world. if people want to get healthy, they will live longer. we will dominate the health market in the world and if we can do so, those are very high- value jobs that pay very wel and produce a lot of capital for the united states. it is thes most logical area if

you are trying to promote a high income economy. we have more total energy, whether you want to talk ethanol or oil and gas or coal or nuclear power or solar or wind, we have more toward energy than any other country in the world. more than russia, canada, saudi arabia. it energy jobs pay pretty high salary. in western pennsylvania, developing shale is about a $72,000 per your job. in the woods yet, about $80,000 per year developing oil and gas in the gulf. these are good jobs. i like them. one of my first goals would be to create american aaron -- american energy that keeps $400 billion here at home. i would rather it go to south dakota and saudi arabia. i'm very comfortable saying to

the american people, let's develop our own energy. if you develop american energy, government revenue goes up dramatically because the government gets royalties. to give you an example of how muchotential revenues you've got, we own 69% of alaska. alaska is twice the size of texas. if we own 69% of alaska, that is 1.5 texas's. you can say, look, we keep will give you half of texas. pick the 25,000 square miles you would like to keep as parks, wilderness areas, terrific. that means we get to develop 250,000 square miles, an area the size of texas. can you imagine the net value? you get more people no longer

afford and lower costs because they are no longer on medicaid and food stamps and welfare and unemployment. and you get more energy production and you get more revenue out of federal lands. all of those increased revenue flow with no tax ireases. i spent years on this project. i chaired the medicare reject -- medicare tax reform of 1996. i have been involved in health transformation. it involves new thinking on the lincoln tradition. on social security, it is simple. every young american should have the right to choose whether or not they want a personal social security and counted the chilean model. it is a very simple model. i am against making things compulsory if you can avoid it. you go to them and you say, would you rather have -- and you show them the quotes of obama in august saying, i may not be able to pay your shores of security

check. do you remember that? do you want to spend 60% or 7% of the life working knowing that politicians may not give you your own money? or would you like your own account that you can control? would you like to have a system that has no estate build up or a a a system that has your money? would you like to have a system where there is a working age where there is no required working age. and by the way, over a million people over the age of 75 still work. this is a model for an industrial era society that is gone. if you get the kind of economic growth that these two great, cial security is fine -- that these two create, social security is fine for the next three years.

they get two and half to three times as much money as they're going to get out of the current system. and medicare, very simple. we start with something that we publish a book on called stop paying the crooks. you wod have thought that title was clear enough that even inashington it would have led to serious conversation. it did not have any impact. the senate bill transformation published in three years ago. i was very confident it would break through. no impact. here are the numbers, just as we understand what we are talking about. if you have an american express card, they use massive eert systems to track fra. so does visa and mastercard. how many of you have ever had a call to make sure you did the charge?

and i am not making this up, just for the benefit of people in washington. [laughter] it is literally true. american express pays .03 of 1% to crooks. as a taxpayer, you are paying three and 33 times to crops. -- 333 times that to the crooks. is between $70 billion and $120 billion per year. but it requires thinkg to do it differently. it requires new approaches. i have talked to all three major

cas and all three are ready to go to the the congress and explain it. the head of i.t. -- ib did go to the president and explain it. it did not work. this is why lincoln talked about new thinking. you have a paper based bureaucracy trying to keep up with crooks who have a and ipad. it is impossible. seco, you give people a choice. why did you just passed tom price's law that says if you are successful and you would like to contract out, you are allowed to contract out. if you want to pay more to the doctor or hospital, you can pay more. every liberal will tell you that is impossible. medicare today is more restrictive than the british national health care service. why not allow people who a successful to have a choice? you could institute next year paul ryan's model of support,

but make it voluntary. and then you say to the insurance industry and others, to you want to compete for the customers? fine. if you want to stay in the old system, fine, but we will give you more and more opportunities to have better choices. we do not compel people to go to wal-mart. you'll hear some folks say, oh, senior citizens get too confused. you cannot allow them to have this many choices. the idea of walking through and saying to my mother when i take her to wal-mart, there are 250,000 items at wal-mart. maybe you do not want to go to all othe aisles. [laughr] she would think i was crazy. but the right to choose is different than being forced. there are ways to modernize

social security and medicare that will save money in the system and allow people to get better interactions. you want to balance the federal budget and i want to recognize mike george. take it out. -- take a bow. [applause] he is an example of why america is a unique country. his first client was going in 1981. he did pretty darn wl. he made enough money. then he decided to take his own lot -- his own money voluntarily to organize and his promises that if you modernize the federal government, you will save billions. in order to apply modern management to the federal the 130nt, you end of thend year-old regulatory system and

you can move every day with continuous improvement, which is part of getting to a quality system. this is a big, not a small idea. of i am the only speaker of the house in your lifetime to balance the federal budget. we paid off $405 billion in debt. am here as testimony to my own candidate saying to you -- [laughter] i know we can do this. and we should pass a balanced budget amendment so future generations are reminded not to say yes to every interest group that shows up. sixth, we need to control the border by january 1, 2014. this is not hard. anybody who thinks this is part -- i have written two novels about world war ii. i used to teach about it. from december of 1941, the victory f. japan to 1945 is five years.

in 3 -- is years. it recently took longer to build a terminal at the atlanta airport. you can do that if you are really rich and nobody threatened to. but if you have real competitors and you have real problems, it is useful to apply common sense. i have said, for example, there are 23,000 department of and security personnel in the washington area. if necessary to achieve this goal, i would be willing to move half of them to texas, new mexico, and arizona so that they can serve on the border. that would double the people available. but this idea that you cannot control reporter is nonsense. every country in history that wants to, does it. it is a matter of willpower. we want to pass and bill in 2014 to control the border. and you go do it.

that does not solve all the problems. is the beginning of a process. we need to deal with the issue of appropriate immigration. we need to modernize the current visa system. it is tually more expensive to get a legal visa and it is to eak into the country. that strikes me as backcourts. -- backwards. we need a serious national conversation about nationa security. we are in vastly greater danger than anybody wants to talk about. and part of that danger is the rise of modern weapons. part of that is terrorist groups who hate us. part of that is the rise of china. part of that is international crime on a scale that we are not prepared to deal with. and which manifests itself, for example, in mexico. this conversation is tgic and dangerous that our leads are

exhausted, our news media as timid, and as a result we are not having a discussion about national security. in some ways, it manifest itself in things like admiral mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who has just now said -- he has come to the conclusion that pakistan is not our allies. that is a very bold thing to say in washington. it is a very obvious thing to say if you are anywhere else in the world. if bin laden was living for five years in a building on lyell from there -- a mile from their defense university, using that was physically possible without the pakistani government knowing it? of course not. and this proposal that we keep 3000 troops in iraq is, i think, very frightening. 3000 troops is too small to defend itself. it should be thought of as a target. this administration is making political decisions that risks

the lives of young men and women in uniform and is profoundly wrong. my dad served 27 years in the army. i know what military life is like. it is wrong to put american debt risk for political reasons and leaving only 3000 troops. we ought to either leave enough to defend themselves or get them all out. yoleave a small group in a dangerous neighborhood and somebody is going to try to kill them. is a very dangerous thing to do. i wish we could have two or three debates only on national security. i will be making a speech that outlin the war later on. imagine a projected cost between now and 2015 of $20 trillion. -- between out and 2050 of $20 trillion.

in washington, this would be a radical and even weird idea. that is what alzheimer's is projected to do. and after that, parkinson's, autism, mental health. brain science will be the most rapidly accelerating knowledge. in the world in the next 25 years. experts say if you could send to postpone it, not cure it, but simply postpone it for five years because it is largely a disease of aging, you save somewhere around half, $10 trillion. if i could save $6 trillion to $10 trillion, would i do? -- what would i do? this is not an irrational conversation. in washington is weird. i cochairedor three years

department -- and autism working group. -- and alzheimer's working group. it is the most feared diseas for people over 55. at a financial level, it is 1.5 federal debts. i want to propose very dramatic -- this will be a speech in the near future and i would like to give it at the university of iowa on the scale of change that we need to fundamentally rethink how we explore brain science across the board. how do we help these diseases? the net payback will be several times the national debt in the next generation. and to have an industry helping the entire planet deal with these problems will create at an incalculable number of new jobs.

the ninth one is the other one. there is no judicial supremacy. this is an artifact of the warren court in 1958. in the federalist papers, alexander hamilton says, the judiciary is the weakest of the three branches and will inevitably lose in a fight with the two elected branches, the legislative and executive. in the judicial reform act of 1802, thomas jefferson, the secretary of state was james madison -- so you have to assume that the two of them knew something about the constitution. theybolished 18 out of 35 federal judges. they say, go away, you do not have a job anymore. some of them tried to file a lawsuit claiming it was unconstitutional. and the judges said, are you crazy? if we agree to hear the lawsuit, they will abolish our offices. is a huge fight. people forget that in the

declaration of independence -- look at it some time and look at the number of citations of british judges. the second mostopular complaint of the amecan people have turner taxation without representation was imperial british judges acting as dictators. when you have a judge who in san antonio on june 1 issued a ruling that not only could students not pray at a high school graduion, but they could not use the word prayer, they could not use the word god, they could not use the word benediction, they could not ask the audience to stand, and he would arrest the superintendent if any student broke his order, at judge is about as anti- american as you can get. this is a country that was founded by a document that says, we are endowed by our creator. is inot about theology. this is about and and then the effort -- an unending efforts

to fundamentally change america. we're going to have a very big fight over the proper role of the judicial branch, because the idea that appointed lifetime lawyers get to dictate the future of america is crazy. jefferson was asked about it at one point and he said it would be a oligarchy. lincoln in his first inaugural, speaking of the dread scott decision, which would have eliminated slump -- slavery in the whole country, said if nine people can dicta to the exclusion of the other branches, we are not a free country. we need to enforce the 10th amendment. washington is too big. washington is too powerful. we are citizens, not subjects. washington is supposed to serve us. the only way to fundamentally change is to go step-by-step and

take everything back home. in order to shrink the bureaucrats, you have to grow citizens. this is a fairly decisive first step. we will flush it all out -- flash it all out between now and some kemba 27 of next year. -- september 27 of next year. the only way you're going to save this country is for the american people to save it. single president, no set of politicians, no magic. just hard work, common sense, and a willingness to put the country first. i would like to, if i can, take questions. and josh, by the way, is learning some school credit today. [laughter] he is an example of whathis is

all about. my daughter, jackie, is here with her two children, my grandchildren, maggie and robert. politics is all about the lives one day if we do our jobs. >> you said that you are not for ate impose religion, but from what you said it sounds like you support religion imposing its ideas on the rest of us. i am very concerned that a branch of christianity has gotten some of its tenants into our laws, like stem cell research, linking foreign aid to reproductive issues and so forth. i was pleased to see -- i did not think you have a lot of social issues in your contract. if you are president, would you work hard to make christian social issues the law of the

land? >> the two that you just cited are not necessarily christian issues. i think orthodox jews have as a profoundly believe in those issues providing a lot of other people do as well. am very much for adults stem cell research and i'm very much for stem cell research that comes from, for example, any device other than killing an embryo. but i'm opposed to getting in process of killing children in order to have research materials. if you look at what is happening with stem cell research, we have less and less demand that you have a thing except regular stem cells because we're learning how to use them. for some people i think that is an ideological fight, not a scientific side. i would not use the american tax dollars to pay for abortion. i do not think the people of the year and states should be paying for abortions. i am very much in favor of adoption. i was adopted.

my father was adopted. i think we should make it very much easier and more desirable to be adopted. i did not desire to impose a particular branch of christianity. my argument about religion is different. we said in our founding document we are in doubt by our creator with certain inalienable rights. should we teach children that are not? sure they learn what the founding fathers meant or not? abraham lincoln said in his inaugural address and he reverences god 14 times and has two quotes from the bible. can you explain lincoln without understanding that he read the bible every afternoon, or is it just bad history because we now have this politically correct model that says we cannot tell you anything about religious beliefs anymore? the idea about taking school prayer out in 1963 made the country better, i do not see any evidence that the children that

do not spend a moment recognizing that they are subservient to god -- now the average guy in any way they want to. -- now they approach got and anyway they want to. i always tell my friends who do not believe it in this stuff, how do you believe we came to be? we could have been rhinoceroses, but we t lucky this week? obviously, i assume that is better to be human than a rhinoceros. [laughter] nobody wants to see the headline, "gingrich shows anti- rhinoceros hostility." [laughter] >> i cannot see how $14 trillion going to $16 chilean

national debt is going to be overcome. do you have any idea? >> you put simply what i'm trying to describe up here. for a while i carried a poster that says to plus two equals four. and i actually got that from a movie. there were signs that people put in their windows in poland. the reason i carried it around for a while was to say to people -- lincoln says at one point, if you cannot get your opponent to agree that 2 +2 =4, you have other problems. we're currently on a trajectory to go money to the chinese and get our oil from offshore.

how do you get to a balanced budget? we did this as a conscious act of wilke in 1985. we said -- 1995. redounded in four straight years. how do you do that? pretty straightforward. spend less than you take in. everything else is details. you are increasing where you are taking in and i would do it by generating revenue without a tax increase. or you do it without -- by cutting spending and i would do it with little pain. if you get to where you are taking in more than you are spending, you have what is called a surplus. this is not theoretically hard. we did it in your lifetime. nobody in washington wants to think about it. can we do it? of course we can do it.

but we currently have a machine whose entire existence is based on spending enormous amounts of money. in order to change, you are now going to have to defeat the machine. thiss why sacramento is such a mess. it does not matter who wins the election in california. the machine own suit sacramento. californians can i get a grip on their government. if you look at what i've done over my career, this is a very, very bold proposal. it is saying, for example, the whole idea of balancing the federal budget, we are saying to end the civil service system as it currently exists. do not make it impossible to fire someone who is incompetent. there is a sers of very bold proposals here. if you are prepared to go

through the level of change i'm describing, will get to a balanced budget and pay down the debt. if we will pay off the chinese and create our own energy so we do not sit -- need to send any money to brazil and we will be a much wealthier countries with greater national security. but it is real change. it is not just more of the current model of washington bureaucracy. >> i'm a former marine and combat veteran and you said that 3000 people left in iraq would be a target. i agree with that. if the other way is to have nine or more, which where would you want to go? >> with the current president, i would go for nine. >> thank you -- i would go for none. >> thank you. >> i think the right now, the iranians are on offense in iraq end we are on defense.

it is going to get worse, not better. the se problem with the embassy. the embassy is way too big, way to indefensible, way too expensive. it was designed for a different world. and the world that obama wants, it makes no sense to half the current american embassy in iraq. it is much too big. it is over $1 billion. what are we doing? we have to rethink the entire region. general john abizaid, who i think is thenly four-star general who speaks fluent arabic, said to a couple of weeks ago, we have a bigger strategic deficit than our fiscal deficit. i think people should take that really seriously. we are grossly underestimating how dangerous the world is and we have no strategy to match those dangers. it is a very serious problem for us.

>> first, speaker, thank you for cong. i have been following you and some of the other candidates for the last couple of years or so. you seem to outline a lot of specific ideas. can you explain your thoughts on why you are not being better received across the country in some of the polls? >> i'm glad you asked it now instead of a month ago because the polls have gotten better. [laughter] my family, we all went through a lot of conversations about whether or not to run. we started with the assumption that if i did run, i would get attacked prefer to sleep. certainly, june and july met that standard -- attacked pretty ferociously. certainly, june and july met

that standard. and some of it is my fault. what i'm trying to do is very different. it is something i did with reagan in 1980 and something i did in 1994, that is, it's positive, ideal oriented campaign that reaches out to hold new groups of people. for example, people interested in brain science, modern management, a new coalition in tradition -- in addition to the traditional republican coalition. and i made a mistake in early spring of bringing some very fine consultants. this is not about them personally. they're all smart people -- and anybody who watches money ball will know i'm talking about. ey're all smart people doing .ne thing i no i'm not going to run attack ads. i cannot compete with the sum of money. -- with some of the candidates on monday. i can attract an enormous amount

of volunteers and network them together, and in the process build a new way of thinking about governing america. i lost about four months being involved in that. the other thing -- i want to say this just right. remember, we just talked with a foer combat marine. this is a country in which the media is more comfortable spending two or three weeks on a congressman's truly bizarre tweets then it is on serious analysis. bring science could be the largest single breakthrough -- brain science could be the largest single breakthrough in saving medicare and medicaid. if y look at the front page story about the contract and you look inside, opposite it is its story on dementia.

and i think every fifth person on medicare has dealt with a person in their life with extreme dementia. trying to get the news media to understand what i'm talking about makes you feel stupid. fundamentally rethink the entire garment system. -- government system. rebalancing the constitution and the tree branches of government. if we can get the media to slow down, get away from gotcha qutions, actually have some open debate -- i will make it clear, if i am the republican nominee, i will challenge the president to seven lincoln- douglas style debates of three hours each wh no timekeeper no moderator. we are in enough trouble that we deserve to have a serious, adult conversation between the two competitors for the president of the united states and no have mickey mouse situations where reporters -- and if you look at

some of the articles that have come out about how they have planned some of these debates, the level of cynicism on the part of some of the peoe asking the questions is disheartening. and it is unworthy of the united states of america. if you have a serious candidate who wants toalk about serious issues, your first challenge is to get the elite media to decide that they will give up the cynicism and spend at least as much time on this as they do this stuff that currently passes for news. [applause] let me thank the principal port for having us here. i can take one more, ok. did you notice how obedient i was? we can take one more. [laughter] >> you mentioned deregulating

and making it easier and less costly for companies to do business, but how do you go about regulating enough to hold people accountable and keep them from cheating the system and the greatness without making it so hard and so costly to do business? >> i think tt is a very powerful question. i think part of it is that you need more transparency and less -- fewer bureaucrats. and you need more ability to respond if they lie to you. i am not for a society in which there are no rules because i think people will on occasion be greedy and lie and cheat and steal. let's be clear. there are profound reasons -- supposedly, theodore roosevelt was reading about in sinclair's "the jungle -- reading upton

sinclair's "the general." -- "the jungle." and he was reading the part about the gentleman who fell back into the machinery. and he supposedly bad day the but the food and drug administration. -- that today developed the food and drug administration. i was a kid in world war ii and you could not always drink the water. i am for those requirements necessary as a base line. i am against turning massive power over to bureaucrats who inevitably politicize and are inevitably ignorant. they are a thousand miles away. you have to have laws that hold people accountable.

you have to have laws that provide for transparency. we now live in an age where, frankly, with the internet and everything, you have enormous amounts of information flow he relatively low cost. that is why this gives you a way to have a real safety and efficiency and productivity. it would -- we ought to be able to have all three. i will say ts again. i'm not going to ask anybody to be for us. but if you want to be whitney, then -- if you want to be with me, then something between 2005300 executive orders will be

filed -- between 250 and 300 executive orders will be filed the first day. and we can and arch of an anchor and children will once again live in the safest and most prosperous country in the free world. that is what we owe them. ank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [genreal chatter] [room noise] >> we are a lot of now at what

used to be known as fort myer and is now known as joint -- as joint base myrick-henderson hall. the joint chiefs of staff chairman, admiral michael mcmullen will be replaced by now army chief of staff general martin dempsey. at the ceremony today, those expected to speak include president obama, and the defense secretary, leon panetta. this is live coverage on c-span. [military orders]

[military orders] [military orders] [military orders]

[military orders] >> good morning, ladies and gentleman and welcome to be honorarium of admiral michael mullen. [military orders]

>> moving on to the field is the commander of troops, the old guard.

>> please stand for the arrival of the official party.

ladies and tell mike, the vice president of the united states -- these and gentlemen. official,viewing admiral mike mullen. a copy by the host, the honorable leon panetta, secretary of defense -- accompanied by the host. and general martin e. dempsey.

>> present. ♪ [band plays] the president of the united states. ["hail to the chief" plays]

ladies and gentlemen, please remain standing for the invocation. plays]

[military orders]

>> let us pray. eternal father, we praise you and thank you. it's subtle presence -- your eternal presence touches us this morning. thank you for your leadership, guidance, and direction that admiral mullen has given to this great nation. we thank you for having stood next to this great leader as he led hundreds of thousands of our most treasured puncher man and woman through two major conflicts. we ask you for a special blessing, a blessing upon

admiral mullen. such service has meant sacrifices, chief of which has been the long separations from home, family, and friends. we rejoice with him on this day. we pray that the lord will be with him. life has advance the well-being of soldiers, coastguardsman, and marines, and the loving admilies -- his wife has event vanced. as new beginnings jones them into other aspects of life, maybe a short of lasting friendships and support. maybe no the many continued blessings of health, happiness, and peace. we ask this in your holy name, amen. please be seated.

[band plays]

[navy band plays]

[navy band plays]

[applause] [military orders] >

>> ready, one. [navy band plays] [military orders] >> the united states navy band. elements of the armed forces include the presidential

marching platoon, led by captain matthew hernandez. the united states marine honor guard. sergeant robert martinez. the colors have been one of the most important elements. armed forces color guard. an element from the navy honor guard led by lt. andrew jefferson. united states air force honor guard. technical sergeant kelly mckinley. first-class petty officer

michael soufra. the old guard fife and drum corps. resistance or the reverse colors of their infantry unit. they maintain this tradition by wearing traditional red coats. major william white. 56 flags of the united states. army maj james stolk. air force major john pilon. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, please stand for the advancing of the colors and the playing of the national anthem. [military orders] >> forward. [navy band plays]

["star-spangled banner" plays]

>> please be seated. >> flag, order. flag. flag. ready. >> ready.

>> ceremonial. >> defense distinguished service medal is awarded to mike m ullen. animal mullen -- admiral mullen distinguish himself during an increasingly dynamic time in our nation's history. he advise the president, secretary of defense, and national security staff, providing strategic direction to the armed forces. he oversaw multiple sustained

joint military operations disrupt terrorist networks, and improve the security and stability in iraq. he worked to expand counterinsurgency capabilities while bolstering ties in pakistan as that region became the central effort. admiral mullen initiate a dialogue to advance support for warriors. the distinctive accomplishments, make a long and distinguished career and reflect great credit upon himself, the united states navy, and the department of defense. [applause]

he is also receiving the distinguished service medals from the army, navy, air force, and coast guard. the department of defense not offer distinguished public service is presented to debra mullen. she met with a host of spouses at arms services installations in order to better understand and drive progress on the issues that affected the quality of life. the depth of the compassion and common sense and energy she employed on behalf of wounded and injured warriors and the families of the followed as well as female homeless veterans was indispensable. she served as an ambassador of goodwill for the united states

for visits to countries across the globe. she will brew remembered for grace and kindness. her warmth and charm greatly contributed to the worldwide acclaim enjoyed by the department of defense and the united states military. her willingness to give of yourself improve the lives of others improved beyond military spouses. the distinctive accomplishments reflect great credit upon herself and the department of defense. she gave voice to those who could not speak for themselves. she gave strength to those who work flagging. no problem on their behalf was too big to handle. she will be missed by all those lives that she touched and souls that she comforted. [applause]

>> flag. [military orders] >> ladies and gentlemen, please stand for the posting of the colors. >> honor guard.

[band plays]

[military orders] [military orders] [band plays] >> flag. [military orders] >> please be seated. >> flag, ready. >> ready.

[military orders] >> ceremonial. >> ceremonial. [military orders] >> ladies and gentlemen, the secretary of defense. [applause] >> mr. president, mr. vice presidents, the sting which guests, ladies and gentlemen. it is indeed a privilege for me to be able to honor two very special persons and two very special human beings. thank you all for being here,

help pay tribute to animal mike mullen for is more than four decades of service to our nation and to help recognize general martin dempsey for once again entered the country's call as he takes on the new leadership role as chairman. but first of all, none of us in public service could do these jobs without the love and support of our families. i want to extend my deepest thanks to the animal mullen's family, his wife deborah -- to admiral mullen's family, his wife deborah. now serving with the fleet. i want to recognize general than

see's family -- general dempsey 's family. they also follow it into their fathers' footsteps and became soldiers. it is truly inspiring to see the same commitment to serve this nation, passing to a new generation of leaders who will follow in the footsteps of their fathers. the route my long career in public service -- the route my long career, i've had the distinct honor to serve with a vast array of immensely talented people and impressive leaders. but for me, admiral mullen will always stand apart in a special place.

his leadership, his influence, his honest candor, his straight talk, his compassion and his outspoken concern for our troops and for their families have set him apart and he has set exceptionally high standard for the role of chairman of the joint chiefs. he has defined the role of the 21st century chairman of the joint chiefs. part warrior, part diplomats, , spokesman,r spoke, leader.

it's career is exampled dogged persistence and hard work. -- his career is an example of dogged persistence and hard work. [applause] >> i think most of them are here. most >> of them will not have predicted that mike would have lasted five years in the navy alone rise to the pinnacle of his military profession. in the fleet and seeing combat in vietnam, mike was taken by the navy and the navy was taken by mike. thanks in part to great people who saw his deep inner strength

and his leadership qualities. he flourished, rising to command, u.s. double forces in europe, sir ring as the 20th chief of naval operations. mike came the job of chairman and a critical time for our military and for our country. we faced hard fighting and heavy casualties in iraq as the surge troops battled it determined insurgency. afghanistan was slipping away as the taliban expanded its presence throughout the country. our military forces, particularly the ground troops, were under tremendous strain deployment after deployment after deployment. he was determined to preserve

the help of our all-volunteer force, even in the face of the unrelenting demands from these wars. he saw what the repeated to performance or doing to america's finest, our young men and women, exhausted. wounded warriors returning home bearing the scars of war. and those bearing and seemed scars forever changed by the horrors they witnessed. mike saw before many others that the war in afghanistan needed more attention, more resources, and a new approach. we all agreed deal to his vision, his determination, his dedication, and his tireless work as a military diplomat to route the region. i'm personally honored by the

fact that the operation that took down bin laden could not have been done without mike's support and without his cooperation. he also made extraordinary progress on asian-pacific matters. he worked to prevent a dangerous escalation in the conflict of the peninsula of the korean peninsula. helped our allied forge closer ties. the repeal of don't ask don't tell. at the moment in time when few thought it was possible, in his courageous testimony and leadership on this issue were major factors in bringing about this important change. his courage and his honesty achieved what was -- what will be forever known as a milestone

in the history of equal rights for all. mike tells it like it is an frankly, that is a rare quality in this town. at a dinner this week, i was reminded by mike his father was a hollywood publicist. as i thought about it, i stated that mike in many ways represented the culmination of all of the qualities from the wizard of oz. great brain, a great heart, and great courage. sometimes a little wizardry behind the curtain to get things done. it's time to say a few words about his dorothy, the more kabul woman who was been by his side since his first day in 1967

and an army-navy game, his wife deborah. both of them came from show business family is. her mother was a dancer from australia. i know the love of the theater continues today and hopefully they will now have some time to enjoy that. deborah has been a steadfast and tireless advocate for more and better resources to care for our wounded warriors and their families. she's been at the forefront of issues confronting military families, spousal employment, homelessness, survivors' benefits, education, posttraumatic stress, and no one has done more to bring to light the special challenges being faced by military children, whom she would have often noted labor under a special kind of fear.

as only a military spouse could do, she was a powerful voice for our families. deborah, you are a national treasure and the country owes you a profound debt of gratitude. [applause] the good thing is that today we will move from one extraordinarily decent human being to another in the role of chairman. up from the roots of an irish family from bayonne, new jersey, marty truly, from the grassroots. he knows about people. he knows about hard work. he knows about sacrifice. having worked with him over these past few months, i can say that the president made a truly inspired choice in picking him

to serve as the next chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. he brings a keen intellect, proven leadership, strategic vision, and humanity to the critical post. and he tells it like it is as well, only with an irish smile. his strategic this is the right one for this time of transition, as we craft a joint force that can defeat the wide range of security threats that we face in the world today and in the future. at this time of budget constraints, he will be a great partner in maintaining the best defense force in the world. i know that both the president and i look really benefit from your advice and counsel. i am delighted that your wife is

joining our team. she is the real -- she is a real friend to military families and i know that you will continue to champion the cause of military families. as the new secretary of defense, i am supremely confident of the future. we have the strongest military force in our history and in the history of the world. and it is strong, exactly because we can replace one great warrior with another. the men and women in uniform are the greatest asset we have. they are our greatest strength. we celebrate the strength today by honoring these two great leaders. is my privilege to introduce another great leader who cares greatly about our men and women in uniform.

ladies and gentlemen, our commander in chief, president of the united states, and barack obama. [applause] thank you very much. secretary panetta, thank you for your introduction and for your extraordinary leadership. members of congress, by president biden, -- vice- president biden, stingless guests -- sting was aghast -- distinguished guests. want to acknowledge your son jack who is deployed today. of you have performed

extraordinary service to our country. want to say a few words about some important news. earlier this morning, anwar al- awlaki, was killed in yemen. [applause] the death --the death is a major blow to al qaeda'most- actives operational of cilia. he was the leader of the external operations for al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. he took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent americans. he directed a failed attempt to blow up an airplane on christmas day in 2009. he directed a failed attempt to block u.s. cargo planes in 2010. he repeatedly called on individuals to kill innocent

men, women, and children to advance the murders agenda. the death of anwar al-awlaki marks another significant milestone to defeat al qaeda and its affiliates. the success is a tribute to our intelligence community and to the efforts of yemen and its security forces who have worked closely with the united states over the course of several years. his organization has been responsible for the deaths of many yemenis citizens. this has been rejected by the vast majority of muslims and people of all faiths. the governor and people of yemen have joined in a common effort against al qaeda. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula remains a dangerous terrorist organization. we will remain vigilant against

any threat to the united states or our allies and partners. this is further proof that al qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world. working with yemen and our other allies and partners, we will be delivered and we will be relentless and resolute in our commitment to destroy it terrorist networks that aim to kill americans. we will build a world in which people can live in greater peace, prosperity, and security. advancing that security has been of the man wek honor today. he got out to a somewhat shaky start. he was a young ensign commanding a small tanker, 23 years old, when the collided with a bulloy.

you're on a ship, audit with anything is not a good thing -- colliding with anything is not a good thing. i tell the story because mike still did himself. he has always understood that the true measure of our success is not whether we stumble. is whether we pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off and got the job. whether the matter the storm that, are as a, we chart our course and keep our eyes fixed on the horizon and take care of those around us, because we all rise and fall together. that is the story of mike mullen. that's the story of america and the spirit that we celebrate today. if there is a threat to register his olestra's career, it is his

sense of stewardship. the understanding that as leaders, our time at the helm is but a moment in the life of our nation. the humility which says the institution and people entrusted to our care look to us, yet they did not belong to us. the sense of responsibility we have to pass them safer and stronger to those who follow. as you look back to your four years as chairman and your four decades in uniform, be assured -- our military is stronger and our nation is more secure because of the service that you have rendered. [applause] today we have renewed american leadership in the world. we have strengthened our

alliances including nato. we all leading again in asia and we forged a new treaty russia. every american can be grateful to admiral mullen, as am i, is critical role in these achievements. today we see the remarkable achievements of our 9/11 generation of service members. they have given arakis a chance to determine their own future. they pushed the taliban and other afghan strongholds and put al qaeda on the path to defeat. well, our forces have responded to sudden crisis with compassion as in haiti and with precision as in libya. there will be long remembered that our troops that these tasks on animal mullen -- admiral

mullen's leadership. our soldiers, afford to sure deployments, wartime with their families, and more time training for future missions. despite the stresses and strains of a hard decade of war, the military that admiral mullen passes on is the best that it has ever been. today, our military draws its strength from more members of our of american families. soon all women will report to duty on our submarines. truck service members who are gay and lesbian no longer have to lie to serve the country that they love. tipping point towards is progress came when the 17th chairman of the joint chiefs of staff when before congress and told the nation that it was the

right thing to do. your legacy will indoor in a military that is stronger but also in a nation that is more just. f [applause] finally, in every discussion i've ever had with mike, one thing has always been foremost in his mind -- the lives of our men and women in uniform. i have seen it in the quiet moments with our wooded warriors. sought that day in the situation room as we held our breath for the safe return of our forces who delivered justice to osama bin laden. i saw it at dover as we honored our fallen heroes in the final journey home. you have to fill out the pledge you made at the beginning, to represent our troops with

unwavering dedication. and so was deborah. thank you for four decades of service -- we thank her for kindness, her jealous, her grace under pressure. she is an extraordinary woman, mike. both lucky to have married up. [applause] now the mantle of leadership passes to general martin dempsey, the most respected generals. thank you, your wife, chris, making, and caitlin -- megan, entering the call to serve once more. curtail panetta, we of one of our finest public servants -- in

secretary panetta, we have one of the finest public servants. and the new vice chairman rubout a team where both the chairman and vice-chairman will have the experience of leading combat operations in the years since 9/11. leon, marty, ash, sandy, men and women of this department both uniformed and civilian, we still of much to do, bring the rest of our troops home from iraq this year, two trends is the two afghan lead to their own security, from defeating al qaeda, tour most solid of obligations, taking care of our forces bridget to our most solemn of obligations. none of this will be easy.

let me say this as clearly as i can. will be guided by the mission we ask of our troops and the capabilities they need to succeed. we will maintain our military superiority. we'll never wavered in defense of our country, our citizens, or our national security interests. the united states of america and our armed forces will remain the greatest force for freedom and security that the world has ever known. this is who we are, as americans. this is to we must always be, as we salute mike mullen as an exemplar of this spirit. we salute him for a life of patriotic service as we continue his legacy to keep the country that we love safe and as we renewed the source of american strength here home and around

the world. mike, thank you, from a grateful nation. [applause] >> ceremonial. >> ceremonial. [military orders] >> ladies and gentlemen, admiral mullen. [applause]

>> thank you. mr. president, mr. vice president, secretary panetta, general dempsey, distinguished guests, people i've worked so hard with, many of whom have become great friends -- the general from russia, general richards from the u.k., of from denmark, family and friends, and and women -- men and women, thank you and good morning. we are delighted to share this

special day with you. this was about three years and six months too long. marks the culmination of our 43 years together in the united states navy. i walk to date one in the naval academy in the summer of 1964, took a young pretty girl to the army- navy game in 1967, in the struggle to graduate a year later and then ask that girl to marry me. had a few objections. triggering them, i thought, maybe i would not marry me either. i had some luck and she did. deborah, possibly be to express the depth of my love or the full

measure of my admiration. completely in ways i have only recently come to understand. i am wiser, it is for your counsel. if i am wiser, it is for your courage. the father of a navy seal killed on that day last august wrote to me of your tenderness and kindness when you agreed with him at dover air force base. i do believe, he wrote, that she is perhaps an angel. you have always been my angel, always on my shoulder, and i love you more than you can know. [applause] like that chairman, i am a proud

navy father. and a proud navy grandfather now. my son sirs of this nation in uniform, and an aviation and the other in surface warfare. no father to be more proud and love you boys. key for being there and for keeping me if not exactly st. that least well grounded -- not exactly sane, and at least well grounded. look forward to watching your great careers on fold. know my mother would be proud and my father would have been thrilled. if you ask any of my classmates from a great class of 1968, they would tie it they would be amazed by my success. [laughter] [applause]

them.y i don't blame i am wholly amazed. i cannot tell you the number of nights i've woken up and thought, that is an important issue. i should call the chairman. then i realize, that is me. thank you for being here, classmates. i could thank thousands of others, mentors, families, colleagues, people like an enormous influence on me and deborah, made possible every success we have known and made heavy cart ships we have weathered. i will not do that. not because i'm losing my memory. that football game i took desperate to in 1967, navy 19, army 14. sorry, marty. i will not do because any

attempt at a proper share of gratitude will result in remarks to prefer to recognize their contribution to our lives and to long for the audience to indoor. endure.o lager to in a know we love them and we are indebted to them. thank you. those were not the closest to us, maybe he should have stepped it up a notch. it doesn't hurt to have friends with access to drones. [laughter] i have been asked by many people would advise i it was given general dempsey. what pearls of wisdom i would leave to them. a big part of this job is discretion.

i have always taken that responsibility very seriously, always considered a low profile was bass, some of like my hero, george marshall. i said as much to david letterman on his show and it is all my facebook page if you want to see it. next to be fair the position is often misunderstood, and i was at a dinner party a couple of years ago when a woman asked me what i did in the military. not wishing to make a whole thing of it, i told her i work in the pentagon, and she kept pressing for details before i admitted that i ended joint chiefs share. oh she said. i guess i thought with all of

those metals and stars you were someone important, but i am, i stressed. i'm the president's top military adviser. her eyes got big. clearly, she was embarrassed. all my goodness, and general petraeus, i am so sorry. [laughter] >> i just did not recognize you. dave is here today as the director of the cia. thank you, dave, i owe you one. if you really want to know what i told marty, it is pretty simple, he is not just the adviser, he is a personal representative of the men and women that make up all our armed forces and their families. i told him he had a bully pulpit in this job and he should use it to stress their needs and their

accomplishments. they will not ask for the help, but they will need it. they will not ask for anything more than his leadership, and sometimes, try as he might, he will believe he has fallen far short. if i told them he will never be more proud than what he stood among the ranks of troops from other services and find that they share the same professionalism, pride, and determination, that i, as a sailor, saw in his shoulders -- soldiers. he should not wear one of those dear patches for seasickness. they work ok, they just do not look very good. [laughter] >> i called -- i told of his fellow chiefs of defense are really the only other people in the world that have any idea what sort of pressure he is under. he will find sources of wisdom,

clarity, and support in them. the same goes for our cheese and commanders who are the best team -- chiefs and commanders, who are the best team with whom i've ever served. we are a great force because of them and their selflessness. i told him the president will listen to him because that is the president of the way. he seeks counsel, appreciates candor, except for certain delicate matters concerning the chicago white sox, and he really likes it when you left at his jokes, and it makes the meeting go the other -- go better. [laughter] >> i have every opportunity to offer my views to the president. all of my advice has been hurt. a military man or woman can ask for nothing more of their civilian leaders, and they should expect nothing less. president obama made it clear

from the beginning that he valued military council and protecting the american people was his top priority. he has made good on both promises. bin laden is dead. anwar al-awlaki is dead. al qaeda is a much diminished network. we are ending the war in the arrest, and our troops and their families have no stronger advocates for their well-being than he and the first lady, the vice president, and dr. biden. they have devoted time and personal energy to make sure our men and women have the support they need. both in the fight and here at home, i consider myself privileged to have served them all, and i appreciate their confidence in may. speaking of the fights we are challenge would be afghanistan, and seeing the transition

through completion, making sure the security gains are not squandered by corruption or the lack of good governance that still plagues the country. our strategy is the right one, we just must keep executing it. i urged him to remember the importance of pakistan, to try to do a better job with that relationship. i continue to believe there is no solution in the region without pakistan, and no stable future in the region without a partnership. not surprisingly, high tolls and the looming budget bottles would dominate -- i told him that a building budget battles would dominate his days, and he could not have a better partner then mr. secretary leon panetta. our time together has been short in days, but long on substance. i consider myself fortunate to have served for you, and learn from you as i did under- secretary gates, another

extraordinary man that i consider a good man and a mentor. thank you for your leadership. it seems you care deeply about our men and women in uniform and you will work to make sure they and their families will remain foremost in mind as we grapple with the difficult budget decisions ahead. first among those decisions is what kind of military american people deserve of the next 20 to 30 years. when i look at the effect that a war has had on us, and our people, and the looming threats posed by iran and north korea, shudder at the challenges in cyberspace, or ponder the capabilities as china raises to the field, i become more convinced than ever that as a nation we cannot afford to lose our edge. we have become the best counter- insurgency force in the world,

but done so at the expense of critical capabilities we not -- let lag. we sacrifice some of the basic leadership and continuity that preserve the health of the all- volunteer force. cuts in defense spending are fair game, and we should do our part, but cut too deeply, and we will burn the blanket of protection we have been charged to provide our fellow citizens, and we will harm, perhaps irreparably, the industrial base from which we secure the materials of war. finally, i told martin to consider the job a marathon, not a sprint. time is his best friend and his worst enemy. i never seems to have enough to do the things i wanted, and it is hard to believe it is over, but martin, you will be great. you are absolutely the right person for this job, a combat-

proven leader, who cares about all of us. with your wife at your side, you are the right team for these times, and deborah and i wish you all of the best. i would also like to extend personal wishes from the broth to our military families. the words that follow are few, but they are hers -- "nothing can be more trying at times than life in the military -- the deployment, the stress, the uncertainty, and the fear, but nothing borne from ease and comfort could foster the pride that military families exhumed every day. it is my deep honor to be a military spouse and wife no so many others who would wait, where it, and worked so hard. thank you for quite a sacrifice, for and power in need to represent your concerns. i will miss the life, and i will

miss all of you, debra." from my part, i have only one less thing to say -- the men and women are the best that we have ever known, and believe in what they are doing, and all i s is that you continue to believe in them. continue to look out for ways to reach out to them and their families, to watch over them in this sea of good will that i know exists in the country. war has changed them and their loved ones forever, but it has not changed their dreams. you can help make those dreams come true. hire them. help them buy a home. get them started on a path toward an education. gives them a chance. that is all they want. i know that is tough to do, because you, too, are struggling, and america is struggling, and the wars use of them to fight are not foremost

on everyone's mines, but they fought them for you. they are still fighting them for you. that is very much foremost on their minds. what makes this country so special is not our accomplishments. it is how we bounce back from adversity, how we beat back our fears. it is the way we soldier through disappointment and trial. these are the hallmarks of a great people. we talk about the resilience of our troops and their families as if it is something apart from the rest of society. it is not, or at least it should not be. where do you think those troops learned to be so brave? in your homes, your schools, your communities. welcome them back to those places not only with bands and yellow ribbons, but with the solemn recognition that they have done your bidding, represented you well, brought

the best of you and this country into battle, and have done things and seeing things and there things in their souls that you cannot know. help them through their trials, be tolerant of them and each other, gives them a chance, and together, we will prove the greatness that is america. god bless you all, god bless our troops and our families, and god bless our great country. [applause] [military orders]

[military orders] >> ladies and gentlemen, at this time, general dempsey will be sworn in as the 18th chairman of the general chiefs of staff -- joint chiefs of staff. >> i, state your name >> hi martin dempsey, having been appointed by the president of the united states to the position of chairman of the joint chiefs of staff do solemnly swear to support and

defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, i take this obligation freely, without any amount of mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and i will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which i am about to enter so help me god. >> so help me god. [applause] [applause] [military orders]

[military orders] >> ceremonial. >> ceremonial. [military orders] >> ladies and gentlemen, the 18th chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey. [applause] >> the groom's side is at it. [applause] >> that is what i was afraid of.

[applause] >> president obama, secretary leon panetta, thank you for the vote of confidence, and for allowing the honor and privilege to continue serving this nation in uniform. vice president joe biden, thank you for your support through the years. i have a lot of family and friends here today. you probably heard a bit of that a moment ago. thank you to all of you for your love and support. my five, and soon to be seven grandchildren are a particular joy in our lives, and my wife continues to inspire us off by the way she deals with everyone she meets. she taped a phrase to the refrigerator asserting that life is what happens when you are making other plans and the last year has validated that assertion. there are so many distinguished guests here today, too many to mention individually.

i thank you all for dedicating your lives to our country. you are what makes us a nation that there's to be great. i am honored by the presence of my fellow chiefs of defense around the world. you are my brothers. my other brothers of the west point class of 1974, prior to the core, are here again. i hope this is our last gathering for a while, or it will mean something has not gone very well. i also have some high school classmates with me. they are here to confirm the fact that miracles do happen. admiral mullen, and debra, thank you. it seems inadequate. awesome seems more appropriate, but maybe a phrase better offered by another generation. however we describe your last four years, you have been extraordinary patriots and

friends. although you are a sailor, and i am a soldier, in the tradition of the horse cavalry, i want you to bto know that i will be proud to tell people i wrote with admiral mullen. you heard me swear an oath to our nation and the ideals that defined it, as those ideals are embodied in our constitution. the oath reflects a sacred trust that exists between the military forces of the united states and the people of the united states. i will live up to that old, and i will maintain that trust. as i begin my tenure as chairman of the joint chiefs, the armed forces of the united states are powerful, responsible, resilient, the versatile, and admired. we provide our nation's leaders with a wide range of options to counter the threats and crises we face, and, when sent to do the nation's bidding, we are and

unambiguous signal of our nation's resolve. our people, america's sons and daughters, our our decisive edge. we will change, and we will be challenged, but when i complete my tenure as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, i intend to be able to say exactly the same thing. we will be the joint force that the nation needs us to be, so help me god. thank you. [applause] [military orders]

[military orders] [military orders] >> right shoulder. [military orders] [military orders] ♪

♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [applause] ♪ slate is a gentleman, the playing of the joint service medal in -- >> ladies and gentlemen, the plane of the joint service medley. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪

♪ ♪ ♪ [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, now approaching from your front right, a training the craft in which thousands of military aviators learned to fly. today's formation was assembled

by a retired u.s. air general, flying on the right wing of the diamond to pay tribute to enroll -- admeld mike mullen. for a job well done, this is our salute. [applause]

[applause] ♪ ♪

[applause] [military orders] ♪

♪ [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain standing for the benediction. >> let us pray. eternal god, we thank you for the gift of a move -- admiral mullen, his wife debra, and the contribution to each branch of

our armed forces and especially this great nation. may be blessed with your gift of counsel and discernment as they continue on the road of further service to their family, community, and nation. we ask your celestial blessing upon the general martin dempsey, his wife, and their family. be with them as he begins his new role. help them to bear the awesome responsibilities which are placed around -- upon him. guard him as he believes admiral mullen, and stand sentinel for each of us night and day. finally, has become to the lore -- caller: of this ceremony, may you continue to bless us and -- as we come to the end of the ceremony, may continue to bless us and keep us. mid-of sunshine warm up on your face, and the rain fall warlock on your fields, and until we meet again, -- fall upon your

fields, and until we meet again, may god hold you in his hand. we ask this in his holy name, amen.

>> ladies and gentlemen, admiral and mrs. mike mullen. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain at your seats until the president has departed. [applause]

[military chanting] [applause] [applause] [applause]

[applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, thank you for attending, and enjoy your day.

>> admiral mullen steps the as the 17th chairman of the joint chiefs. he will be replaced by general martin dempsey, currently the army chief of staff. a reminder that you will see all of this later in our program scheduled, and surely in our video library ed c-span.org. it was mentioned in a couple of comments the death this morning of the two alleged terrorists in yemen.

a anwar al-awlaki was killed in the strike on a convoy in yemen. it was. out by the cia joint operations command. the cnn is reporting it was done by a u.s. drone. peter king praises the president for the extraordinary victory, and also, presidential candidate ron paul says the killing of anwar al-awlaki on yemenis soil is "an assassination." you can follow members of congress that are commenting. we wanted to show you president obama when he made his comments here today. he started out by commenting on the morning news. . want to say a few words about some important news. earlier this morning, anwar al-

awlaki, was killed in yemen. [applause] the death --the death is a major blow to al qaeda'most- actives operational of lia. he was the leader of the external operations for al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. he took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent americans. he directed a failed attempt to blow up an airplane on christmas day in 2009. he directed a failed attempt to block u.s. cargo planes in 2010. he repeatedly called on individuals to kill innocent men, women, and children to advance the murders agenda. the death of anwar al-awlaki

marks another significant milestonto defeat al qaeda and its affiliates. the success is a tribute to our intelligence community and to the efforts of yemen and its security forces who have worked closely with the united states over the course of several years. his organization has been responsible for the deas of many yemenis citizens. this has been rejected by the vast majority of muslims and people of all faiths. the governor and people of yemen have joined in a common effort against al qaeda. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula remains aangerous terrorist organization. we wl remain vigilant against any threat to the united states or our allies and partners. this is further proof that al

qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world working with yemen and our other allies and partners, we will be delivered and we will be relentle and resolute in our commitment to destroy it terrorist networks that aim to kill americans. we will build a world in which people can live in >> president obama from just a short while ago commenting on the death of a anwar al-awlaki. we will hear more about that at the white house briefing which is just a few minutes away. we will have to live for you when it starts. until then, part of this morning's "washington journal." facebook to make a comment. you can also email us.

at journal@c-span.org. today threatening the g.o.p. plan. four states voting early in 2012 to choose a republican presidential nominee.

host: if we are forced to change our dates together, we will, strong said. >> the chaos in the primary

calendar could move iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses to january 2, said political scientist larry sabato, director of the university of virginia's center for politics. what do you think about the effecteness of the presidential primary system? we'll put the numbers back on the screen. please allow 30 days betwn your calls. wanted to point this out also. prominent u.s.-born cleric killed in yemen. anwar al-awlaki who became a prominent figure in al qaeda's most active branch using his fluent english and internet

savvy was killed friday in the mountains of yemen. they announced his death but gave no details of u.s. senior official and they support the claim he has been killed. they spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss those matters. al al-awlaki it would be most prominent of the al qaeda to be killed since osama bin laden. in july leon i netta said he and al zawahiri were ang the top being sought. from the washington times, bill funds government for four days. it took just nine points in keep the federal government's basic operations running for

the first four days of october at a rate of nearly $3 billion a day. the house was nearly empty when the texas republican asked for involuntary manslaughter consent asked for a stopgap bill to avoid a government shutdown that otherwise would ve begun saturday, the start of the next fiscal year.

>> host: mr. carney questioned why there had been a teat of a shutdown when all sides had already agreed to a funding level of 2012 when they reached the debt deal early last month. >> conservatives had argued the house should stick to the lower 2012 spending level the house passed in its budget in the spring. that's from the washington times this morning. now back to your calls on the effectiveness of the pmary. we start with an independent in california. hi ray. caller: hi there. i've been an independent for all my life.

i've been voting since 1980, and i've never voted for a presidential candidate that ever won. and i've alws resented the two-party system hoisting their wharges on me as an independent. and i think the biggest thing that would help this country is to have more instant runoff voteing. i don't know how the parties do it within their organizations, but i've always resented that if there's any third or fourth candidate, independents are always worried that their firt choice is never going to have a chance. because usually the major parties, the candidate can win with not a pluralty of the vote. so i would just hope --

host: as an independent, you talk about being shut out of the system for this long. what about the fact that you're in california? do you feel that california gets ignored? do you think california should move up i primary date? caller: well, i admit our state is biased against the republicans and independents. but like i say, i think a whole new picture would come to light if people could actually go to the polls in the primaries in california, and by the way, i think this open primary is a farce that it's going to always have two of the same parties in the final race for our elections. host: lori is a democrat in cleveland. good morning. whato you think about the effectiveness? caller: i don't know. i'll have to really work on myself and look in the mirror and say positive things every day. host: ok. caller: because i tell you, all

of these republican candidates, all they do all day long every chance they get a camera is denigrate and lie on president obama. and the reason i know is because i started to research what he said, what he's doing and researching what they say he's doing. they all want to take us back to the same -- those same pocies that we haven't gotten rid of yet. that got us in this position. seriously, what do you think about the system we use to nominate a president. caller: well, it would be a great system if we didn't have all this money iit. now our enemies can pay into our system. everybody all over the globe doesn't love us and a lot of people who don't like us have big money in our system, and

our system is working against us. because some of these republicans' plans are going to kill the low income and some of the middle class people. poverty kills. poverty kills, peter. and if you don't want to take money from the top and you just want to cut the bottom, you're going to kill thousands of people. host: isaiah in atlanta. independent line, what do you think about the effectiveness of the presidential primary, isaiah. >> good morning. caller: i think it's a fraud, as a black man in america, and my people before me slaves. i'm pretty sure my parents voted. and the neighborhoods are the same or even worse. the education system in the inner city is just the same or worse than it was in the ooh's and 60's, so what's the use of

voting? it ain't helped us yet and probably never will. can i ask you a question, peter? host: yes. caller: did you guys ever do a segment on the guy that got killed down here? host: i don't think we did. caller: i was just asking. it was an international sry. and i see you guys talking about some guy killed in yemen this morning that ain't did nothing to nobody -- nothing i never seen him do nothing new orleans to nobody in america but the story in america, y'all lek cute a black man in georgia for nothing, it got no coverage on c-span. i was just asking a question. host: all right in indiana on our republican line, what do you think about the effectivens of the presidential primary system? caller: well, i don't think

it's effective since it's so spread out. to piggyback on a previous caller, the way that they vorkts instant runoff votings a good way but the best way is range voting. it maximizes voter satisfaction. host: what's range voting? caller: it's a system of voting where you give a score to the candidates and then they average those and the ones with the highest average actually become that particular candidate. works in primariesnd multiseat elections. host: all right. thanks, edgar. too much money wasted on primaries? we need move to regional primaries. january the, the east, march, the west. change vote day to saturday. "washington post" newt

beginning bridge bolsters his plan. persistence has its reward. his presidential as operations has defied as operations, crept up in the polls and become a draw on the campaign trail. his tenacity has also bolstered his republican parties' idea brand who released his version of contract in america. it has even helped his wimbings calista, whose new children's book recently shot number three on amazon's list of best sellers.

host: that's in "the washington post," as is this article about john huventsman. -- huntsman. john huntsman jr.'s campaign strategy is new hampshire or bust. host: elizabeth, west virginia? is it maudeen on our republican line. am i saying your first name

right? caller: yes. host: what do you think about the way we elect presidents in primaries? caller: well, i tell you, the first time i ever was interested in polits, i was in new hampshire. and it was when they had the big conventions, and that was the most exciting and wonderful thing and i loved it. and i don't know when we went into all this is that you have drags out for years. i like the old conventions. host: you liked the old conventions, but but you just said you were excitedbout new hampshire. >> well, benefits my husband in the air force and riveted on tv ho: oh. ok. the conventions. caller: maybe i didn't say the right word.

conventions. i like that. host: you want to go back to that. huh? caller: yes. and get rid of these coercials. it's these commercials that cost so much, i think the tv channels must really love all this stuff, because of all the air time they can get. host: bellevue, florida. on our democrats line, good morning stev caller: i don't think it's a matter of effectiveness. it's defectiveness. the primary cause. it distracts everybody, whether it be the party in power or the party you're trying to assume to the -- when there was enough the processwhen trueman was

about to retire from his elected term and republicans were battling it out with eisenhower and adlay stevenson. obviously, there wasn't a lot of tv back then. particularly. it was really for the elites to really have tvs in their households. but this thing -- i'm inclined to agree with rush limbaugh and/or the ores, tv is manipulating people's opinions and perceptions, and one other thing, i vote for a candidate from england, basically. i mean, he's a naturalized american citizen but he keeps tabs of the goings noneurope and all. i don't want to suggest i'm for socialism or anything, but he

says when it comes time replace prime ministers, it's a matter of eight weeks outside and then we could start to finish. i think we should emulate that. this whole process is distracting president obama from his work for the last two years of his first term, you know? second term or not, he's having to deal with -- i don't think it's an effective process. i think it's defective. and i'll leave it at that. bye. host: democratic line hi janet. >>. caller: i think the presidtial primary con by june you'll have your candidate, voting on candidates during the primary in bad

weher i think suppresses the vote. i think we should have rotating regional primaries to make it all a little bit more fair to states do get an opportunity to be earlier than over states. but you know, that's not a must-have. host: do you like the idea -- what do you think about the idea of florida moving up? caller: i think it's a terrible idea. i think they are going to end up with a candidate, and by june, they may regret having that particular candidate by june. i think it's just way too soon. people aren't interested in poll kicks. the republicanrimary is just way too early.

host: this is set by the republicans and the democrats have gone along with this but the republican national committee primary caucus deadline is tomorrow. new hampshire, by sta law must schedule itsrimary at least seven days ahead of others. nevada state party rule is that with the republican caucuses four days after the and states are penlized requiring they forward half their delegates to the national convention. what we do know is that florida is expected to announce today its primary will be on january 31. the move by florida could prompt iowa, new hampshire, nevada and south carolina to allow them to hold their first nominating contest and march 6, is super tuesday.

next call comes from raleigh, north carolina, and jay on our democrats line. hi, jay. >> hi. i do agree with the process and i think it wastes money and it does waste time we could be using to try to work out what is going on duringhis current term, during the current president's term? i think halfway through the president is already starting to talk about the next election and then we take two years to start to work on the problems right now. i think we're being distracted by theolitical process. and i just think this would be true for any president in any

term, but especially as we see things changing in the world. i'd also like to see -- there's a study out of north carolina, the university of north carolina about the browning of america. i'd love to see everyone talking about that. because lots of times we talk as if only hispanics are illegal aliens, when in fact there are more illegal aliens from other countries that have come legitimately on visas and then never renew them. people are talking about not allowing education or funding to support illegals. well, it's jst not hispanics. i wish we would focus on that study. host: thank you for calling in. from politico, republicans target health and they release their draft 2012 budget for

labor, health and education plans. a measure that moves towards the democrats in total dollars but still challenges his prized education and health care reforms. host: that's in politico. and in the hill this morning, durbin said democrats still have the vote for the jobs i will be. at the moment congress doesn't have the streets pass

host: that again is in the hill newspaper as is this article -- st: back to your comments on the effectiveness of the

presidential primary system. this tweet from connie, the primary is meant only to make money. it goes too long and needs to scrapped and shortened to eight weeks stoorpt finish. this comment from connecticut liberal mom it's about as effective as.t. barnum was rolling in the dollars for nada. proves there really is a sucker born every toe then there's this tweet. host: brian is a republican in cincinnati. brian, good morning. what do you think about the effectiveness of the presidential primary system? crime not unhappy with it --

caller: i'm not unhappy witht at all. host: now do you know when brian's primary is? caller: no. host: who are you supporting? caller: i haven't made up my mind yet. i really haven't made up my mind at all. host: thank you for calling in. gary is in donna, texas, on our independent line. hi, gary. caller: hello. host: what do you think? gary, you've got to turn down volume on your tv. ly come back to you but otherwis you get that delay. jacobs in jackson, georgia. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was just calling in, because i believe -- i'm a young voter.

twelve 2we68 -- 2012 will be the first election i'll be voting in. think the primaries prevent young voters from getting the politics. it's too focused on the other thingst we need to find a way to speed up the process, because it's keeping young people from hearing the voices, beuse it takes so long to get into it and be in understanding with politics. host: thank youacob. bank of america announced thursday tha it will charge its debit card users a $5

monthly fee for debit card usage sparking fury. it blamed its decision on the fees banks can charge retailers for the use of debit cards. banks say the fee go to pay indirect cost of providing debit cards such as fraud and overdraft protection. senate majority whip dick disturb bin stayed bank just wants to protect robust profit mains. henry is republin in new orleans. hen rirks you are on the "washington journal." what do you think about the effectiveness of the presidential primary system? caller: well, i'm not a republican. i'm a democrat. thank you for taking my call. in listening to what y'all were

talking about the primaries, one caller indated the two primary system is not working. there should be a third group that should be formed to represent this country. it would be the party of the americans, and that would eliminate this tea party and everything else. because then youave to go dooned the right thing for this country which is not what we're getting with this stand in the middle and cross my line attitude. in the cal we know the world in 2012. i think we are going to self-destruct within. because when you look at what's actually going around us, it's not trying to make any progress. it seems like we are reversing our strides and gains over the last 100 years. when you look at the people that are out there, they are becoming more and more inclined

toward everybody but themselves and 99% of the republicans are the people who control and own all these billions of dollars. and they e not willing to do anything. and the primarys are not going to make that much difference right now because you have a supreme court and then on your other comment, we receive a -- host: that was henry a democrat in new orleans. rick perry to hold a town hall meeting with new hampshire voters. he'll hold that town hall meeting at the adams memorial opera house in dairy, new hampshire. c-span will cover that live. that is at 6:00 p.m. this evening etern time. rick perry town meeting. donna, texas. gary on our independent line. you are back on the air. gary, go ahead.

caller: ok. i think the primaries were set up right. it allows a large majority of people to exam your candidates and make a good decision. i think that possibly right now people are messing up the system or even trying to manipulate the system, and i don't think it should be allowed. i think they need really strict rules on it. i do want t comment on >> we will take you live to the white house with the briefing with jay carney. >> tito was manager for the first two world series and a long time for the boston red

sox. i am a red sox fan because i grew up without a team. all love baltimore. -- i love baltimore. my family and did not travel up 95. [laughter] i love the inner harbor. i have taken my kids to the aquarium and they have a great children's museum. i do like to go to games in camden yards when the red sox are playing. with that -- i guess there's nothing going on today. i don't have any announcements so i will go straight to your questions. associated press? >> on the killing of anwar al- awlaki -- does the president

believe a different standard applies when the target is a u.s. citizen? does he view al qaeda operas in the same vein? -- operatives in the same vein? >> you heard the president talk about anwar al-awlaki' death. and why that is a significant event. he was a principal leader in al- qaeda in the arabian peninsula, the most operational affiliate of al qaeda. he himself was directly involved in plotting terrorist attacks against the united states and american citizens including the so-called underwear bomber, the attempted bombing of an airliner in 2009 and a failed attempt to bomb cargo planes headed for the united states. in the overall effort, the

sustained effort, to continue to put pressure on al qaeda, this is a significant fact that anwar al-awlaki is dead. questions about the circumstances of his death i will not get into. the question you just passed contains assumptions within that that i want addressed. >> if you're going after another -- >> this goes to the assumptions of the circumstances of his death and i will not address that. >> is the administration prepared to lay out the evidence against him? >> separate, again, from the events and the fact that he died today, that he was a leader of

al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula and was operationally involved in serious attempted terrorist attacks against the united states and americans is an established fact we have talked about a long time from here and we have talked about a long time about how dangerous aqap is and that has been our focus and that is what our cooperation with yemen with intelligence and diplomatic late has been so important. it certainly reflects on the partnership we have had in that effort with yemen and the yemeni officials and why that is important to continue. in the overall effort we have made, there are many components to it. when i talk about pakistan and the complicated relationship with pakistan, our cooperation with pakistan has helped us in the efforts against al-qaeda and

certainly our cooperation with yemen has done the same. >> does the administration make a distinction between his role as an inspirational leader and an operational leader? is there a tipping point? >> there is no question he was engaged in inspirational efforts or that he was a recruiter for al qaeda. he was also very demonstrably and probably involve the operational aspects of aqap. he was a senior leader. those are statements of fact. those are things i would have said last week if you ask me. in terms of anything relating to the circumstances, i have said all i can say about that. >> on a separate matter, secretary clinton said there is

a formal review -- you had a meeting yesterday nfc with the president. are you further along in those discussions? you designated some of the terrorist leadership? >> individuals have been designated and that review continues. i don't have an update on the review. >> do you have a time? >> i don't have a time for you. yes? >> did the president personally order or approved the attack? >> i will go back to what i said before. the circumstances of his death i will not address. i will say that who he was and

the threat he posed and the fact, that he -- this is significant and go to our cooperation with yemeni officials and counterparts but also around the region and why it is so important -- we cannot forget that the principal victims of violence perpetrated by al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula were muslims. as a leader of aqap he was responsible for that. going into the circumstances of his death is not something i will do here. >> his focus was primarily international because of his english language capability and his abilities on the internet and speaking to moslems. what affect do you think his

death will have on a fax by aqap to destabilize the government of yemen and saudi arabia? >> this is a serious blow to al- qaeda in the arabian peninsula. we remain extremely vigilant. that organization remains very dangerous and has proven itself to be operational and cable. the vigilance continues. as it has in the wake of a successful mission against osama bin laden. al-qaeda remains a serious threat and one that we continue to confront in a variety of ways. while this is an important milestone, it is not the end of change our doesn't posture toward the organization.

>> do you sense in the many government that they are helping the u.s. government or is this something that has been going along? >> i was asked is because of the unrest in yemen as to how that has affected their cooperation and it made more -- made it more difficult for the corporation to continue and it will continue and it is separate from president salaa and we continue to call on him to abide by the commitments he has made to begin the transfer of power immediately as stipulated in the gcc agreement and that has not changed. we call on him and his government to cease any violent actions against the yeni people. -- against the yemeni people.

>> where, when, and was the president notified? >> he was notified by john brennan, his counter-terrorism adviser and was briefed on it again this morning. >> was woken up by a phone call? >> he was just notified. i won't get into specifics. it was early this morning before the sun. >> at what time? >> i don't have a specific time but it was early. he was notified when he was still in the residence. once he came to the oval office, he had his normal daily briefing and this is a subject there in that discussion. >> nobody questions that this administration and the prior have identified aqap as a threat. it was said this was a u.s.

drawn and this was an american killed. is the justification for deciding where and when an american can be killed, can you speak hypothetically on the justification? >> i will not speak about the circumstances of his death or i will not speak hypothetical. i am not aware of anyone by name who has made the kind of statement you said from the government. >> can you explain why you won't get into any of the specifics of what has gone on here? we have been reported but u.s. drones have been involved and there is u.s. involvement in this attack and this was an american. help us understand why or you're not hearing any more details. >> i will not get into the circumstances of anwar al- awlaki's death. we are asked questions like that all the time and our response is the same which is that we cooperated with our partners

around the world whether it is pakistan or yemen in taking the fight to al qaeda and that cooperation takes many different forms. it is vital to the success we have had integrating al-qaeda and this is collectively with our partners and that effort continues. i will i get into the specific circumstances of his death. >> you said that on were all lucky was demonstrably involved in operations. >> he is clearly -- i think it has been well established and has certainly been the position of his administration and the previous administration that he is a leader and was a leader in aqap but aqap had an operational plan and carry out terrorist attacks that fortunately did not succeed.

they were extremely serious including the one specifically i mentioned thin terms of the christmas day bombing in 2009 and the attempt to bomb numerous cargo planes headed for the united states and he was obviously an active recruiter of al qaeda terrorists. i'm a big and abundant in the field would dispute any of those assertions. -- i don't think anybody in the field would dispute any of those assertions. no one would dispute that he was a leader of al qaeda and operationally involved in terrorist attacks against american interests and citizens. >> will you bring before the public any proof? >> the question has embedded within it assumptions about circumstances of his death that i will not address. >> i don't understand. >you are a asserting he had

operational involved in the cargo plot and a christmas day plot and he is now dead. can you show us or the american people or as a judge been shown? >> i will not go any further than what i said about the circumstances of his death or the case against him. >> you said he was responsible for these attacks. will there be any evidence presented? >> i don't have anything for you on >> does the administration not see at all a president asserting that he has the right to kill an american citizen without due process? he will not even and explain why he thinks he has that right?

that is troublesome to some people. >> i was not aware of any of those things you said actually happening. i will not address the circumstances of anwar al- awlaki's death. it is an important fact that this terrorist who was actively plotting to attack americans and american interests is dead. from any angle, i will not discuss the circumstances of his death. >> you know that the aclu tried to get permission to represent anwar al-awlaki? they need to get permission from the treasury department said they could challenge him being on this targeted killing list. the obama administration refused to let them represent him. he could not even have the aclu

-- aclu representing him. >> you can direct those questions to the treasury or just as but i don't have anything. >> what would barack obama, constitutional professor, make of this? >> he spoke about it today. >> under what legal authority can the u.s. government kill? >> that is not a question that i would have an answer to. generally speaking, and i am not going to answer a question like that in any way that relates to the events of today. i will not talk about circumstances of anwar al- awlaki's death and i do not acknowledge or concede or accept promises embedded in questions and you should take no response i get to have done that. i am not talking about the

circumstances. >> after 9/11, president bush gave the cia and later the military the authority to kill a u.s. citizen abroad if there were plotting attacks on the united states and then barack obama continued that. is that correct? >> that is a question i would have to taken your best address that to the justice department. >> does the president have any co-sponsors for his american jobs active? >> he is confident as i said yesterday that the senate will take up the american jobs at. act./ it has broad support from democrats in both houses. you're talking about congressional, legislative process. the bill will be taken up. how and with whose names attached, i don't know. i would refer you to the leadership in the senate.

the important facts pierre are that in the bill why the things that are in the bill would be beneficial to the economy and good teachers and construction workers back to work building schools and bridges and give tax cuts and everybody -- to everybody gets a pay check against tax cuts to small- business is, tax incentives to small businesses to hire or increase wages, specific present -- provision to hire veterans -- these are all things that outside economists have said would have a positive impact on the economy. there was no higher priority for this president than to continue to push congress to take action on those important measures. >> can the president confirmed that not even speak pelosi has not signed up for the bill?

>> i'm not aware of any democrat who does not support the provisions that go to creating jobs, reducing taxes and that sort of thing. it has broad democratic support. i can review all the statements of support in the wake of the joint session. as a matter of record for those who consume public opinion data, most of you do, it has broad public support across the political spectrum. all the provisions within it -- the provisions within it in the past have had democratic and republican support. we are confident that congress will act on the. we certainly hope that the entire american jobs act will be passed into law and signed into law by the president. it portions of it are sent to

him that come directly from the american jobs act and it is paid for in a way and is modeled after the principles that the president supports, he would sign those and say send me the rest of it. we are at a moment in our economy when the economy needs this kind of action. the legislative details of this are not particularly important. the broader principle here is the need to pass it. the american people are not particularly concerned about which congressman is assigned up to it. but when washington will take action to help create jobs. >> senator durbin is not just any senator. he is the number two senator and when he says the president does not have the votes for the jobs bill, even fellow democrats are

saying they will not pass it now? >> i'm not sure that is what he said. the boat is not today or tomorrow. >> he said we can work on it. >> right, and we are working on and we will get it. we face certain realities in the united states senate which is that you cannot name a post of us without 60 votes of these days. that is the way the filibuster is used. that was meant to be an exaggeration. even if every democratic senator supported it, we face those obstacles, we have made the point and the president has made the point that these are provisions that have historically garnered republican support as well. we are making the case here in washington and around the country as to why that support to be there this time. the american people needed and wanted and they want washington to take action. >> warren buffett was on cnbc

and it sounds like republicans are suggesting he came out against the wall or roll. -- again buffett rule. when asked how the president was paying for the jobs bill, he did not give support for it. he said i will look at the overall plan and decide what i like and don't like. if one of the president's economic gurus supports raising taxes and is not offering support for the way he wants to pay for the jobs bill -- >> he was distinguishing it and making clear that the interviewer understood -- you pointed out that it was not the same at buffett principal and what he discussed. he wants to look more deeply

into the various provisions within the jobs act. the overall principle that he supports the need for wealthy americans to pay their fair share has been established many times by him in a variety of forms. >> he said he is not sure the mechanism that the president wants to pay for the bill. >> he said he will look at it. >> said the senate democrats are looking for other ways to pay for the job bills. >> what i said as recently as yesterday and meant to include in my otherwise eloquent as nora is that if there are other ways to pay for this that are fair and do not put burdens on the middle-class unfairly or seniors, we absolutely are willing to look at that and understand the members of congress have either changes around the margins are different ideas about how to do that.

my point about the vast support of the provisions within the bill was about those provisions that go to stimulating growth and accelerating hiring. the president believes strongly that what the provisions are in the bill are fair and represent the kind of choices we need to make in this country at a time when we have to ensure that we pay for something like this and we tighten our belts and everybody is paying their fair share and therefore, you are not unfairly burden in one sector of society and saying it is all on the seniors or the middle class or kids coming out of college or going into college trying to get in on education. other ideas have to pay for deficit reduction bills have had the problems within them. we think there is a more fair

way to do it. >> it is reported that secretary chu is taking responsibility for solyndra loan. does he have the president's full confidence? does anyone believe he is to blame for what happen solyndra. >> he does have the president's full confidence. he is the head of that department. it is the department where career professionals have administered the program, reviewed the loan application, made their recommendation and ultimately the head of that rate -- department is responsible. there were numerous people involved who were career professionals and work on those kind of issues every day. >> can you explain how the u.s. confirmed and are al lockley's

death. he has been dead before ve. -- can you explain how the u.s. confirmed anwar al-awlaki's death? he has been dead before. >> i don't have any answer to that. have any specifics whether that came from yemen. >> there has been a report that he was also killed. >> i don't have any information on anyone except anwar al- awlaki. >> you don't know how the confirmation came about? >> i don't have the confirmation. i would not know where the others are getting it. i don't have to give. >> [inaudible] >> what i am saying is that we will not address the circumstances of his death.

i would not anticipate a briefing on it. >> is it because you don't know the answer? >> in terms of notification and things like that -- >> [unintelligible] >> i will cite the question about notification of where it came from. i don't have any details on that themeon the buffett situation is he talked about the attack on the ultra-rich. even at this that make $30 million per year would be paying. >> no, this is important. there has been a lot of delivered misrepresentation for political reasons and misunderstanding. it absolutely fits the buffet role as the president described it. if you make $5 million, and i

hope you do, and it is all in wages, and that $5 million is all in wages or $50 million if you're lucky enough to make that much, you were paying an effective tax rate that is as much as middle-class folks are paying. if, however, you are like warren buffett or someone making $1 million or $10 million or 50 or 5 million, you are paying a tax rate lower than a plumber or a secretary or many of us here. that is where the principle would apply. it does not apply -- that is how warren buffett described it. >> it is said it affects 50,000 people. >> i don't know what the numbers are. this is part of a principle that should guide tax reform overall.

we have acknowledged that there are a lot of very apple americans who make millions and maybe even tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and a portion of them are paying an effective tax rate that is as much as a middle-class wage earner. there are certainly numerous very affluent americans who are not and that is what the buffet rule is meant to apply to is those who, because of the way our tax code is written and the nature of their income, can find themselves paying up to 16% unsubstantial income where as most folks are paying much more than that. >> there have been complied s againstuper-pacs.

the complaints were filed to the irs to have them look into whether they are using their charitable tax status. given the president's previous denunciations' of uspac-s in general, does the president's support an investigation? >> that report is new to me so -- >> city ever ask them not to go about this? -- did he ever ask them not to go about this? >> early in my tenure, i address this question. i have not thought about it today. i will have to take it. >> does the killing of anwar al- awlaki complicate the argument [unintelligible] >> no, i made that clear. our position has not changed that he needs to keep his commitment as embedded g in

thecc agreement that he signed to transfer power right away. we continue to have that position. >> this may prove his point that under his leadership, yemen has been a valuable ally to the united states in counterterrorism. how would you respond? >> the cooperation with yemen with civilian-military intelligence counterparts in yemen is not limited to one person and as their been about one person. it has been about a partnership around the goal of dealing with a threat to the united states and american allies and to yemen. that cooperation continued -- has continued throughout the unrest even though it has made

it more difficult and it is one reason why s residencealaa these to abide by his commitments. -- that is why president salaa need to abide by his agreements. we will endeavor to continue this going forward but it does not change our position with regard to the president. >> can use that or confirm that the president is able to designate individuals on a cia capture or kill less? >> i can't. i don't have an answer to that. i will not get into backdoor ways to discuss the circumstances. >> didn't this happen earlier in the year? >> i don't know what discussions have been had about that in the past. i can look at that.

i want to make clear that in doing that, i am not discussing the circumstances here. >> was the role explained entirely consistent? >> yes, i appreciate the opportunity to make clear here because there has been, i am sure, a accidentalblogging by republican leader in tw andeeting and web sites that have misconstrued what warren buffett was saying. the principal is that affluent americans should pay the same, at least the same tax rate as middle american wage earners. that does not mean that everyone making over a certain figure on that principle would have a change in their tax rates. many are paying an effective tax rate that is at least as high

as middle americans or somebody making $60,000. there are many others who were paying an effective tax rate that is much lower because of the nature of their incomes. as we look at tax reform, as we talk -- try to address all the different loopholes and subsidies and aspects of the tax code that benefit some at the expense of others, that principle should be applied. >> but this only affects 50,000 people a -- >> i don't know if we have numbers that we put together on this. it is not an insubstantial number but it is the principle here. not only does warren buffett's strongly agree with this but most americans agree. we have gathered figures about what we estimate

based on data. those numbers may not reflect our numbers. a principal is a principle. >> is a lot higher, as high as 400,000? >> we would have to get good numbers. >> can you talk about the role that the yemen government plays [unintelligible] in? >> i will not get into the circumstances of his death. it has been an objective of this administration and the prior one but this one in particular that we were to have that cooperation because of the threat that al qaeda has in the arabian peninsula. through that unrest, that has been an issue because of the need to continue that

cooperation that the unrest adversely affected that and it continues today. >> yes? >> do you think the income of a millionaire ballplayers should be affected by the new tax code? >> i don't know about that. having a larger payroll does not translate into the larger picture. >speaking of a bad headline -- sorry. >> the president is doing a lot of fundraising. what has he gleaned out of the meetings he has had and he has been reaching out to small donors. can you give us a summary of what it means to him?

what about his interaction with supporters? >> he has enjoyed the opportunity to get out and talk to his supporters. it is part of what you have to do and what you do when you are running for office. the message that he has carried is the same everywhere which is that when he took office, when he was sworn into office in january of 2009 and back on the night he was elected, he made clear this was not going to be easy. the challenges he faced were enormous and as it turned out, there were more enormous than people realized at the time in terms of the economic challenge. we have made progress but our work is not done. we have to continue to struggle and fight and do the things that need to be done to help the american people economically to ensure that we continue to make

the investment in our future in education and infrastructure and innovation that will enable america to dominate the 21st century economically the way it did in the 1920's. the message he has been bringing to his supporters is similar to the message that he is delivering in general about where he wants the country to go, the steps he needs -- we need to take to get there, the challenges we face which remain substantial, and the need to keep working, to keep pushing forward to achieve the goals he set. >> the president was proud to say the grassroots donors are very important. is he concerned he will not be able to replicate that in this election? >> i will address -- i will leave those kind of questions to the campaign fund-raising and

the makeup of downers. my understanding from what i have read in the press is he is getting very broad support from all over the country in small and big ways. yes? >> at fort myers, the president said the operation was a tribute to our intelligence community and the efforts of yemen and security forces. can we infer that this was a covert cia operation without u.s. military involvement? >> no. >> he did not mention military. >> i think the point is is that broadly speaking we have had a cooperative relationship at a variety of levels with our yemeni counterparts. that has been the case for a

certain amount of time now and continues to be the case today. >> the reason i asked it because in the case of osama bin laden, that was pretty clear from the outset. it appears there is no such military involvement this operation. >> i will not parse his words or anyone else's that led down the path of trying to discuss the circumstances of his death. i just will not do it. >> he said the u.s. decision s ofalaa is not related to the anwar al-awlaki situation. does that mean that the timing return to yemen does not coincide with this incident? >> there is no connection to my knowledge. >> you took a question yesterday

on chinese currency. does the administration take a position on it? >> we are reviewing the bill. we share concerns about the need for the chinese currency to appreciate. there has been some progress and there needs to be more. >> you will leave it that way? >> that is what i have to say today about it. >> does the president believe there's a risk of retaliation and danger to americans after the anwar al-awlaki attack? >> we are always mindful of the possibility of actions by those who generally have as their goal doing harm to the united states and americans and their allies. after something like this, regardless of what the circumstances of his death might

have been, we need to be extra vigilant. i would expect that is the case in terms of the community that deals with this. yep? >> the president often talks about innovation and other industries. on the buffet rule, it would substantially affect venture- capital lest some who make any kind of capital gains on new businesses. is he concerned that the buffet rule could really harm investments in these type of businesses that he is often promoting? >> as a matter of principle, the president believes strongly that someone making millions of dollars in income should not be paying at a much lower tax rate than an american receiving a

paycheck and making $75,000. >> could this be at the cost of real jobs? >> this administration and president has taken numerous measures toward helping businesses, especially small businesses create jobs and start-ups. in this proposal, the american jobs act, we have tax relief for small businesses specifically aimed at putting more money into the pockets, if you will, of small businesses which will hopefully enable them to grow and fire and give them incentives to borrow their work forces or increase wages. the commitment to this president has to helping our businesses grow and hire is very strong. yes? >> have two questions on the euros on.

the president is outspoken about his concern on the bureau's own. euroaone. the parliament took action. is this how foreign leaders should deal with other countries? but congress pointed out that how they deal with the debt crisis and it is a danger for the world economy? would you think that leaders in congress would go along with that? is it a consideration to see what european leaders can do to get their house in order? >> it european leaders or other leaders want to make the point we have made that political dysfunction in washington is bad for the economy, that is fine with me and i'm sure it is ne