education statistics on educational performances on students. pleasure e-mails, phone calls, and tweets. it is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. we will get house speaker john boehner's take on the president's jobs plan, then a discussion with vice-president joe biden. later, former vice president dick cheney. all part of a forum hosted by the atlantic and the aspen institute. before the presidential election of 1916, charles evans hughes was a lawyer and professor, a two-term governor of new york, and though he lost his bid for the presidency, his impact on

political history remain, serving as secretary of state and ultimately chief justice of the u.s.. he is one of the 14 men featured in the new series, the contenders, live at the supreme court building in washington d.c., friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. for a preview of about hughes, watch a video at our website, c- span.org. at his news conference, president obama urged congress to support his $447 million jobs bill. other topics include china's currency, relations with pakistan, and europe's debt. from the east room of the white house, this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> good morning, everybody.

i will take your questions in a second. i want to say a few words about the economy. next week, the senate will vote on the american jobs act. by now, i have made my view is well known. some of you are keeping a tally about how many times i have talked about the american jobs act. the reason i keep going around the country talking about this is because people really need help right now. our economy needs a jolt right now. this is not a game. this is not the time for the usual political gridlock. the problems that europe is having could have an impact on our economy at a time when it is fragile. there could be another downturn if the situation in europe gets worse. it will boost economic growth and put people to work. this is not just my belief. this is what independent

economists have said. not just politicians. independent experts that do this for a living have said that this jobs bill will have a significant effect on our economy and on middle-class families all across america. what these independents have also said that if we do not act, the opposite will be true. there will be fewer jobs. there will be weaker growth. as we look towards next week, any senator that is thinking about voting against this jobs bill, when it comes up for a vote, they need to explain exactly why they would oppose something that we know would improve our economic situation at such an urgent time for our families and businesses. congressional republicans say that one of the most important things we can do is cut taxes. then they should love this plan. the jobs bill would cut taxes

for virtually every worker and small business in america. if you are a small business owners that hire somebody or raises wages, you would get a tax cut. right now, there is a small business that does high-tech manufacturing. they have been expanding for the last two years. they have been thinking about hiring more. hundreds of thousands of teachers and firefighters and police officers have been laid off because of state budget cuts. this jobs bill has funding to put a lot of those men and women back to work. it has funding to prevent a lot more from losing their jobs. i had a chance to meet a young man named robert. he is an english teacher in boston. he came to the white house a few weeks ago. he has two decades of teaching experience, he has a master's

degree, he has an outstanding track record of having his students make huge gains in reading and writing. in the last year, he has received three pink slips because of budget cuts. why would we not want to pass a bill that would put somebody like robert back in the classroom teaching our kids. some of you talked about a bridge in kentucky that has been classified as obsolete. that is a fancy way of saying it is old and breaking down. we have heard about bridges in both states that are falling apart. that is true all over the country. in maine, there is a bridge that is in such bad shape that pieces of it were falling off the other day. we have millions of construction workers that could be busy rebuilding roads, rebuilding bridges, rebuilding schools.

this gives them a chance to get back to work rebuilding america. why would you vote against that? the proposals in this bill are not just random investments. they are steps that we have to take if we want to build an economy that lasts. we want to be able to compete with other countries for jobs to restore a sense of security to middle-class families. to do that, we must have the most educated workers. we have to support innovative small businesses. we have to support innovative manufacturers. what is true is that we also have to rein in our deficits and the within our means. that is why this jobs bill is fully paid for. i asked the millionaires and billionaires to pay their share. some see this as class warfare. i see a step -- see this as a

simple choice. we can fight to protect tax cuts for folks that do not need them. or we could cut taxes took from virtually every small business in america. we have a responsibility for those sending us here. i hope that every senator thinks long and hard about what is at stake next week. with that, i will take your questions. i will start with the associated press.

>> i would like to ask you about two economic matters. do you agree that the economic bill is close to a faltering? they said that they want results. what did not be productive to work with republicans on a plan that you know will pass congress instead of going around the country eighth talking about your bill and calling on republicans by name? >> there is no doubt that the growth of the economy has slowed. the combination of the japanese tsunami, the arabs bring, -- arab spring, as consumers and businesses service.

we did not help in washington with the debt ceiling debate that took place. that is unprecedented in terms of how we dealt with our responsibilities in washington. there is no doubt that the economy is weaker now than it was at the beginning of the year. every independent economist who has look at -- looked at this question carefully believes that for us to make sure that we are taking out an insurance policy against a possible double-dip recession, it is important for us to boost consumer confidence, put money in their pockets, cutting taxes where we can for small businesses, and it makes sense to put people back to work, doing the work that needs to be done. that is exactly what this job bill does. with respect to working with congress, it is fair to say

that i have gone out of my way in every instance, sometimes at my own political peril, sometimes with the frustration of democrats, to find common ground with republicans to move this country forward. in every instance, whether it was during the lame-duck session, when we were able to get the agreement, to make sure that payroll tax was caught and unemployment was extended, to my constant efforts during the debt ceiling to try to get the grand bargain. in which we have a balanced approach to bringing down our deficit and debt in a way that would not hurt our recovery. each time, what we have seen games playing, a preference to try to score political points rather than get something done. that has been true, not just over the last six months, but

over the last 2.5 years. our doors are open. what i have done over the last several weeks is take the case to the american people said that they understand what is at stake. it is up to all of these senators and all of the members of the house to explain to their constituencies why they would be opposed to common sense ideas that have historically been supported by democrats and republicans in the past. why would you be opposed to tax cuts for small businesses and tax cuts for american workers? my understanding is that for the last decade they have been saying that we need to lower taxes for folks. why would we not want to do that for this jobs bill?

historically, republicans have not been opposed to rebuilding roads and bridges. why would they be opposed now? the biggest problem in terms of unemployment has not been in the private sector. it has bill layoffs of teachers and cops and firefighters. we have created over 2 million jobs in the private sector. in the public sector, we keep seeing these layoffs having an this is what doing. there are currently to other participants. it reflects those ideas they

need to explain to me what they will do. they know this bill is based on independent analysis. it will remain an additional 1.9 million job spirit i am happy to hear it. i have not heard them offer alternatives. a lot of the problem predates the financial crisis. they're seeing their wages and incomes flat. folks have been struggling not

just for the past years but for a decade now. at a time when some many people are having such a hard time we have to have an approach that is big enough for the moment. we are agreeing to do these bills. that is great. i am in favor. i'm glad they're passing. what i have heard from republicans is, well, you are agreeing to do these statements. i am in favor of these statements and they are passing, but that is not going to do enough to deal with the huge problems we have right now with respect to unemployment. i am thrilled we were able to get republicans and democrats to work together. that is a long-term issue for our economic competitiveness. it is not putting americans to work right now. the bottom line is this.

if next week the senators have additional ideas that will put people back to work right now and meet the challenges of the current economy, we are happy to consider them. every idea we put forward, or the ones that -- are the ones that have been traditionally supported by democrats and republicans alike. i believe it is very hard to argue against them. if mr. mcconnell chooses to vote against it or if members of his caucus vote against it, i promise you, we are going to keep on going, and we will put forth -- maybe piece by piece -- each component. and each time they are going to have to explain why they would be opposed to putting teachers back in the classroom or rebuilding our schools or giving tax breaks to middle- class folks or tax cuts to small businesses.

>> [unintelligible] >> i think if we do not take action, we could end up with more significant problems than we have right now. some of it is simple math. the payroll tax we just passed will be set to expire. the jobs plan -- if that is not extended, and that is over $1,000 out of the pockets of the american family at a time when they're dealing a severe pinch, that means they're going to be spending less. that is going to have an adverse effects on the economy. thank you, mr. president. -- >> thank you, mr. president. we assume you are ok with the

change on the surtax, the 5.6% surtax. >> we have always said we would be open to a variety of ways to pay for it. we've put forward what we thought was a solid approach to paying for the jobs bill itself. keep in mind though, not only do we have to pay for the jobs bill, but we have to spend more to reduce the debt and the deficit. the approach that the senate is taking, i am comfortable with in order to deal with the jobs bill. we still have to reform the tax code to make sure we are closing loopholes, closing special interest tax breaks, making sure that the buffett rule -- which is millionaires and billionaires are not paying a lower tax rate than ordinary families. so, there's going to be more work to do to make the tax

system fair and just and promote growth, but in terms of the immediate reaction, this is the approach they are taking. >> you asked for a members of the public to approach members of congress and switchboards got jammed. you are not hearing about phones being jammed. one member of congress told me, there is disillusionment he is concerned about with the public that maybe they just do not believe anything can get done anyway. are you worried about your own powers of persuasion? >> what we have seen is the american people are looking at the specific provisions of the jobs bill.

the american people are frustrated. we do not get a sense -- they do not get a sense that the sign in this town are looking out for the reasons -- for their interest. people are feeling cynical and frustrated about the prospects of action in this city -- absolutely. you know, i can go out there and make speeches, but until they actually see action, some of that cynicism is going to be there. in the debt ceiling debate -- you know, a majority, may be higher than 70% agreed with the proposal that i talked about.

what the american people saw was congress did not care. not only what i thought, but what the american people thought. they had their own agenda. that cynicism is not going to be reduced until congress actually proves their cynicism on. by doing something that will actually help the american people. this is a great opportunity to do it. this is a great opportunity to do it. keep in mind -- if the american jobs bill passes, we are still going to have challenges. we're still going to have to make sure we have the best education system in the world, because that is going to be critical for creating good, solid middle-class jobs. we are still going to have to create research and science and make sure we do even more on

infrastructure. the american jobs does not cover all the roads and bridges infrastructure around the country. it is not as if that is going to solve all our problems, but it is an important start that we know would end up growing the economy and putting hundreds of thousands, millions of people back to work at a time when they needed the most. and is paid for. the one persuasive argument republicans have made previously against a bill like that is we cannot afford it. well, we can afford it if we are willing to ask people like me to do a little bit more on taxes. we can afford it. without affecting our deficit. our proposal is paid for. so, that cannot be the excuse. so, yes.

until they see congress actually putting country ahead of party politics and partisanship, there is going to be skepticism, and this is not a reflection of the lack of faith in american jobs bill. they have not seen congress able to come together on action. this is an opportunity. will be have seen as, they agreed -- what we have seen is they agree with what we have put forward. here is what i will also said. based on the debt ceiling vote, what they have seen is the republicans in congress, even in the american people agree with them, often times will vote against something i am proposing. there maybe skepticism that i personally can persuade republicans to take action. that is why i need the american people to put pressure on them. justifiably what they have seen

oftentimes, it even ideas that used to be supported by republicans, they have decided they arrogance that. >> thank you, mr. president. as you traveled the country, you talked about the dodd-frank law. they clearly do not think you are republicans are part of the solution. your part of the problem. are you following this movement? >> obviously, i have seen it on television.

i think it expresses the frustrations of the american people. that we had the biggest financial crisis since the great depression. huge collateral damage all across the country, all across main street. seeing, you're still some of these same folks who were responsible trying to fight efforts to crack down on abusive practices that got us into this problem in the first place. so, yes, i think folks are frustrated and the protesters are giving voice to a broad based frustration about how our financial system works. keep in mind i have said before and i will continue to repeat we have to have a strong, effective financial sector in order to grow. i used a lot of political

capital, and i had things and bruises to prove it, in order to prevent the financial meltdown. and that was the right thing to do. because i've seen a financial collapse, the damage to the american economy would have been even worse. for us to have a healthy financial system, that requires that banks and other financial institutions to compete, but not on the basis up hidden fees, deceptive practices, or derivative cocktails that no one understands that expose the entire economy to an enormous risks. it was designed to make sure we

did not have the necessity of taxpayer bailouts. we said we would be able to control these situations. we can isolate them, quarantine them. let them fail. it says that we're going to have a consumer watchdog on the job all the time who is going to make sure dealing with customers -- we're dealing with customers on a fair way. we will have to make sure that we will be straight with people on what they're purchasing. what we have seen over the last year is not only is there the financial sector with the republican party in congress fighting every and to the way, but now you have these same folks suggesting we should roll back all this reform and go

back to the way it was before the crisis. today, my understanding is we have a hearing on richard cordray, who is my nominee to head up the consumer financial protection bureau. he would be the cheap consumer watchdog for financial products. this is a guy who is well regarded in his home state of ohio. he has been the treasurer of ohio, the treasurer general of ohio. republicans in ohio say he is a serious person who looks after consumers. he has a good reputation. republicans are poised not to confirm him, not because of anything he has done, but because it would roll back the entire notion of having a consumer watchdog. you of presidential candidates whose main economic policy proposal is wanting to get rid

of the financial reforms that are designed to prevent the abuses that got us into this mess in the first place. it will be frustrating for the american people until they get the sense that everybody is playing by the same set of rules, and you are rewarded for responsibility and doing the right thing as opposed to gaming the system. i am going to be planning every inch of the way here in washington to make sure we have a consumer watchdog that is preventing abuses by the financial sector. i will be hugely supportive of banks and financial institutions to are doing the right thing by their customers. we need them to be lending. we need them to help to what traditionally banks and financial services are supposed to be doing, which is providing businesses and families

resources to make productive investments that will actually build the economy. the american people -- until the american people see that happening, yes, they're going to express frustration about what they see as two sets of rules. >> [inaudible] >> what i think is that the american people understand that not everybody has been following the rules. wall street is an example wall street is an example of that. folks who were working hard every single day, getting up, going to the job, loyal to the company, but that used to be the essence of the american dream. bedside you got ahead, the old- fashioned way. these days, a lot of people who were not doing the right thing are not rewarded.

that is going to express itself in 2012 and beyond until people feel like once again you're getting back to some old- fashioned american values, which, if you are a banker, then you're making your money by making prudent loans to businesses and individuals to build plants and equipment and hire workers that are creating goods and products that are building the economy and benefiting everybody. jay tapper? >> thank you, mr. president. one of the reasons why so many people of the occupied wall street protests are so angry is because, as you say, so many people on wall street did not follow the rules.

but your administration has never really been aggressive in prosecuting -- in fact, i cannot think any wall street executive has gone to jail as a result of their malfeasance. i wonder if you can comment on that? i am wondering if how this controversy is playing out gives you any pause on your administration? many democrats were concerned about the department of energy, many e-mails going on with the attorney general. are you worried at all halyard ministration as running backs >> first on the issue of -- are you worried at all about how your administration is running backs >> first on the issue of protests, the collapse of lehmans, the whole subprime and the fiasco, a lot of the stuff was not necessarily illegal or inappropriate or reckless.

that is exactly why we needed to pass dodd-frank. the financial sector is very creative. they're always looking for ways to make money. if there are loopholes and rules that can be bent and arbitrage to be had, they will bend them. i am not going to comment on particular prosecution's. that is not my job.

that is the attorney general's job. a lot of practices that should not have been allowed necessarily against the law, but they had a huge destructive impact. that is why it was important to put in place financial rules that protect the american people from reckless decision making. with respect to fast and furious and solyndra, i have been very clear. i have complete confidence in attorney general holder in how he handles his office. he has been very aggressive in going after cash transactions in these cartels in mexico. we have a lot of cooperation with mexico on this front. he was not aware of what was happening with fast and furious. both he and i would have been very unhappy if somebody had suggested guns were allowed that could have been prevented

by the united states of america. we've assigned the inspector general to look into how exactly this has happened. i have complete confidence in him and the process to figure out who in fact was responsible for that decision and how it got made. solyndra, this is a loan guarantee program that predates me, that historically has had support from democrats and republicans as well. at the idea is pretty straightforward. if we are going to be able to compete in the 21st century, then we have got to dominate cutting edge technologies. we have to dominate cutting edge manufacturers. clean energy as part of that package of the technology of the future that has to be -- at least here in united states. now, the loan program is

designed to meet that particular need in the marketplace, which is a lot of these small start- ups, they can get individual investors, they can get several million dollars to get a company going. but it is very hard for them to scale up. particularly with cutting edge technologies. is hard for them to find private investors. part of what is happening is china and europe are putting enormous subsidies into these companies and giving them incentives to move offshore, even if the technology is developed in the united states. they go to china because the chinese government says, we're going to up to get started, we're going to help you scale up, we will give you loans. we will do what ever it takes for you to get started here.

that is part of the reason why technologies are developed here. we are the leader in solar energy, wind energy. i want to close that gap and say, let's see if we can help these folks locate jobs in united states. knew from the start with the loan guarantee program -- we knew from the start that the loan guarantee program would involve some risk. if it was a risk free proposition, then we would not have to worry about. the old portfolio has allowed companies to start manufacturing here in united

states. in has helped create jobs -- it has helped create jobs. the process by which this decision was made was straightforward, and of course there will be debates internally when you're dealing with something as complicated as this. but i have confidence that the decisions were made based on what would be good for the american economy and american people and putting people back to work. and by the way, one last point. and her there was a republican member of congress who is engaged in oversight, and despite the fact that they all passed support of this loan guarantee program, he concluded, you know, we cannot compete against china when it comes to solar energy. you know what? i do not buy that. i am not going to surrender to other countries a technological leap that could determine whether we build a strong middle class are not. so, we are going to have to keep on pushing hard to make sure that manufacturing is located here and new technologies are developed, and there'll be times it does not work out.

in not going to given to the competition when they are heavily subsidizing all of these industries. >> [inaudible] a lot of it is legal, but a lot of it is not. >> the president cannot go around saying "prosecute somebody." as a general principle, if someone is engaged in fraudulent actions, the need to be prosecuted.

there are laws on the books. they need to be prosecuted. that is the attorney general's job. i know attorney general holder, u.s. attorneys all across the country, they take that job very seriously. >> thank you, mr. president. you just spoke about the need for banks to start lending. you talked about how creative the can be. yet earlier in the week, he said "banks do not have an inherent right to get, you know, some amount of profit." do you think that your government has a right to say how much profits american companies can make? >> i absolutely do not think that. i was trying to make a broader point. which is that people of been

using financial regulation as an excuse to charge consumers more. basically the argument they have made is, you know what? this hidden feet was prohibited, and so we will find another eight to make up for it. -- another fee to make up for. they have that right, but it is not a good process. it is not necessarily fair to consumers. my main goal is to make sure we have a consumer watchdog in place who is letting consumers now what their practices are, making sure transactions are transparent, making sure that banks have to compete for customers based on the quality of their service. the frustrating thing we have right now is we have folks over in congress, republicans, who say they see their role as eliminating any prohibitions on any regulations for financial companies. i think that is part of the frustration the american people feel. they have gone through a period

of rate hikes they did not know about, fine print they did not understand. that is true for credit cards, mortgages. contributed to overall weakness in the economy. and yes, i think is entirely appropriate for the government to have some oversight role to make sure consumers are protected. so, banks and any business in america can process their business anyway they want. as long as there is accountability and consumers understand what they are getting and there are going to be instances where a policy is made that, you know what? there are certain factors were that is unfair. that is the market's always operate.

>> [unintelligible] >> i think what the consumer finance protection bureau can do is make sure that consumers understand exactly what they were getting, exactly what was happening. i think that congress can make determinations with respect to whether or not a certain practice was there or not. dated -- david nakamura. >> thank you, mr. president. just following up on solyndra. giving out $80 billion of guaranteed loans and promising to save jobs in green energy and clean energy. direct and reports that only 3500 new jobs have been created in that industry. why has that industry been so slow to respond to the investment your administration has provided, and what you see going forward for how we move on?

>> i think what has been true historic plea is that -- historic plea is that businesses that rely on new technologies, oftentimes is going to take a while before they take off. there's a lot of up-front investment to be made in research and capital and so forth. barriers for companies trying to break in. keep in mind, clean energy companies are competing against traditional energy companies. and traditional energy is still cheaper. in a lot of ways. the problem is, it is running

out. is polluting. and we know demand is going to keep on increasing. we have to make these investments. that makes it more difficult for a lot of these companies to succeed. other countries are subsidizing these industries much more aggressively than we are. hundreds of billions of dollars is pouring into the clean energy sector. they're projecting what is happening.

i have confidence in on japan new hours of being able to win that competition. duplicatingg to be the system they have in china were there state from banks. and ignoring bad management. there is a role to play for us to make sure these companies can have a fighting shots. it does mean there'll be some that are not successful. it to be an uphill climb. it is very difficult for all companies to succeed. >> >> if you think that it is a

system of the? >> even for those projects that have ended up being successful, there are those who have been doubtful. there always be a debate over whether this particular approach will be successful. the department of energy made these decisions based on their best judgment about what would make sense. the nature of these programs are going to be ones in which for every success may be one that does not work out as well. that is what the pro gram was designed to do.

it is to take bets on these areas where we need to make shea your -- -- make sure we are maintaining our lead. anybody on capitol hill will say there's the chance that the jobs at passes either house. the have been out on the campaign trail. it begins to look like you're campaigning and mike year following the harry truman model and some negotiating. are you negotiating? >> they need to do something. i think it is very clear that if members of congress come in and say we want to build infrastructure here is the way

we the we can do it we have some ideas. i am eager to work with them. we have this great idea for putting teachers back in the classroom. that is not what we're hearing. we're hearing that there big ideas are ones we're already doing. they had given me a list of the republican job creation ideas. but passed it. it is great we're passing them. we put them forward, i expect bipartisan support. i think it's going to be good for the american economy. but it's not going to meet the challenge of 9 percent unemployment, or an economy that is currently weakening. it's not enough.

patent reform, very important for our long-term competitiveness. there's nobody out there who actually thinks that that's going to immediately fill the needs of people who are out of work, or strengthen the economy right now. so what i've tried to do is say, here are the best ideas i've heard. not just from partisans, but from independent economists. these are the ideas most likely to create jobs now and strengthen the economy right now. and that's what the american people are looking for. and the response from republicans has been, no. although they haven't given a good reason why they're opposed to putting construction workers back on the job, or teachers

back in the classroom. if you ask them, well, okay, if you're not for that, what are you for? trade has already been done, patent reform has been done. what else? the answer we're getting right now is, well, we're going to roll back all these obama regulations. so their big economic plan to put people back to work right now is to roll back financial protections and allow banks to charge hidden fees on credit cards again or weaken consumer watchdogs, or alternatively they've said we'll roll back regulations that make sure we've got clean air and clean water, eliminate the epa. does anybody really think that that is going to create jobs right now and meet the challenges of a global economy that are -- that is weakening with all these forces coming into play? i mean, here is a good question, here's a little homework assignment for folks, go ask the republicans what their jobs plan is if they're opposed to the american jobs

act, and have it scored, have it assessed by the same independent economists that have assessed our jobs plan. these independent economists say that we could grow the economy as much as 2 percent, and as many as 1. 9 million workers would be back on the job. i think it would be interesting to have them do a similar assessment -- same people. some of these folks, by the way, traditionally have worked for republicans, not just democrats. have those economists evaluate what, over the next two years, the republican jobs plan would do. i'll be interested in the answer. i think everybody here -- i see some smirks in the audience because you know that it's not going to be real robust.

and so, bill, the question, then, is, will congress do something? if congress does something, then i can't run against a do- nothing congress. if congress does nothing, then it's not a matter of me running against them, i think the american people will run them out of town, because they are frustrated, and they know we need to do something big and something bold. now, the american people are also concerned about making sure that we have a government that lives within its means, which is why i put forward a plan that would also reduce our deficit and our debt in a more aggressive way than what the special committee has been charged with. folks want to talk about corporate tax reform. i've already said i'm happy to engage with them on corporate tax reform.

i'm happy to engage with them, working to see what we can do to streamline and simplify our tax code, eliminate all the loopholes, eliminate these special interest carveouts and potentially lower rates in the process while raising more revenue. i am happy to negotiate with them on a whole host of issues, but right now we've got an emergency. and the american people are living that emergency out every single day and they have been for a long time. they are working really hard. and if they're not on the job, then they're working really hard to find a job. and they're losing their homes and their kids are having to drop out of school because they can't afford student loans. and they're putting off visiting a doctor because when they lost their job they lost their health insurance. they are struggling. and as a consequence, by the way, all of us are struggling, even those who are well off. the irony is the same folks that the republicans claim to be protecting, the well off -- the millionaires and the

billionaires -- they'd be doing better, they'd be making more money if ordinary americans had some money in their pockets and were out there feeling more confident about the economy. that's been the lesson of our history -- when folks in the middle and at the bottom are doing well, the folks at the top do even better. >> is this kind of public pressure the only leverage you have, sir? >> look, we have a democracy. and right now, john boehner is the speaker of the house and mitch mcconnell is the republican leader. and all i can do is make the best arguments and mobilize the american people so that they're responsive. so far they haven't been responsive to not just me but public opinion. we saw that during the debt ceiling vote. but we're just going to keep on

making the case. but i guess what i'm saying, though, here, bill, is -- and i said this when i made my speech at the joint session -- the election is 13, 14 months away. i would love nothing more than to not have to be out there campaigning because we were seeing constructive action here in congress. that's my goal. that's what i'm looking for. but i'm also dealing with a republican majority leader who said that his number-one goal was to beat me -- not put americans back to work, not grow the economy, not help small businesses expand, but to defeat me. and he's been saying that now for a couple of years. so, yes, i've got to go out and enlist the american people to see if maybe he'll listen to them if he's not listening to me.

matt spetalnick. where's matt? >> thank you, mr. president. one question on the economy and one on foreign policy. first of all, the senate has taken up today a bill aimed at pressuring china to let its currency rise. what's your position on that bill? would you veto or sign it, should it hit your desk? on the foreign policy front, do you agree with admiral mullen's accusation that pakistan's intelligence agency has used the haqqani network as a virtual arm? and what, if any, consequences up to and including a cut-off of aid would you be willing to consider? >> obviously we've been seeing a remarkable transformation of china over the last two decades, and it's helped to lift

millions of people out of poverty in china. we have stabilized our relationship with china in a healthy way. but what is also true is that china has been very aggressive in gaming the trading system to its advantage and to the disadvantage of other countries, particularly the united states. and i have said that publicly, but i've also said it privately to chinese leaders. and currency manipulation is one example of it, or at least intervening in the currency markets in ways that have led their currency to be valued lower than the market would normally dictate. and that makes their exports cheaper, and that makes our

exports to them more expensive. so we've seen some improvement, some slight appreciation over the last year, but it's not enough. it's not just currency, though. we've also seen, for example, intellectual property, technologies that were created by u.s. companies with a lot of investment, a lot of upfront capital, taken, not protected properly by chinese firms. and we've pushed china on that issue as well. ultimately, i think that you can have a win-win trading relationship with china. i'm very pleased that we're going to be able to potentially get a trade deal with south korea. but i believe what i think most americans believe, which is trade is great as long as everybody is playing by the same rules. now, the legislation that is being presented in congress is an effort to get at that. my main concern -- and i've expressed this to senator schumer -- is whatever tools we put in place, let's make sure that these are tools that can actually work, that they're consistent with our international treaties and obligations. i don't want a situation where we're just passing laws that are symbolic knowing that they're probably not going to be upheld by the world trade organization, for example, and then suddenly u.s. companies are subject to a whole bunch of sanctions.

we've got a -- i think we've got a strong case to make, but we've just got to make sure that we do it in a way that's going to be effective. last point is, my administration has actually been more aggressive than any in recent years in going after some of these practices. we've brought very aggressive enforcement actions against china for violations in the tire case, for example, where it's been upheld by the world trade organization that they were engaging in unfair trading practices. and that's given companies here in the united states a lot of relief. so my overall goal is, i believe u.s. companies, u.s. workers, we can compete with anybody in the world. i think we can make the best products. and a huge part of us winning the future, a huge part of

rebuilding this economy on a firm basis that's not just reliant on maxed-out credit cards and a housing bubble and financial speculation, but is dependent on us making things and selling things -- i am absolutely confident that we can win that competition. but in order to do it, we've got to make sure that we're aggressive in looking out for the interests of american workers and american businesses, and that everybody is playing by the same rules, and that we're not getting cheated in the process. >> is china? >> that is a -- that is a term of art, so the treasury secretary, i've got to be careful here -- it's his job to make those decisions.

but it's indisputable that they intervene heavily in the currency markets, and that the rmb, their currency, is lower than it probably would be if they weren't making all those purchases in the currency markets to keep the rmb lower. with respect to pakistan, i have said that my number-one goal is to make sure that al qaeda cannot attack the u.s. homeland and cannot affect u.s. interests around the world. and we have done an outstanding job, i think, in going after, directly, al qaeda in this border region between pakistan and afghanistan.

we could not have been as successful as we have been without the cooperation of the pakistan government. and so, on a whole range of issues they have been an effective partner with us. what is also true is that our goal of being able to transition out of afghanistan and leave a stable government behind -- one that is independent, one that is respectful of human rights, one that is democratic -- that pakistan, i think, has been more ambivalent about some of our goals there. and i think that they have hedged their bets, in terms of what afghanistan would look like. and part of hedging their bets is having interactions with some of the unsavory characters who they think might end up regaining power in afghanistan after coalition forces have left. what we've tried to persuade pakistan of is that it is in

their interest to have a stable afghanistan, that they should not be feeling threatened by a stable, independent afghanistan. we've tried to get conversations between afghans and pakistans going more effectively than they have been in the past, but we've still got more work to do. and there is no doubt that there is some connections that the pakistani military and intelligence services have with certain individuals that we find troubling. and i've said that publicly, and i've said it privately to pakistani officials as well. they see their security

interests threatened by an independent afghanistan in part because they think it will ally itself to india, and pakistan still considers india their mortal enemy. part of what we want to do is actually get pakistan to realize that a peaceful approach towards india would be in everybody's interests, and would help pakistan actually develop, because one of the biggest problems we have in pakistan right now is poverty, illiteracy, a lack of development, civil institutions that aren't strong enough to deliver for the pakistani people. and in that environment you've seen extremism grow. you've seen militancy grow that doesn't just threaten our efforts in afghanistan but also threatens the pakistani government and the pakistani people as well.

so trying to get that reorientation is something that we're continuing to work on, it's not easy. >> i'm sorry, sir -- consequences of being? >> we will constantly evaluate our relationship with pakistan based on, is, overall, this helping to protect americans and our interests. we have a great desire to help the pakistani people strengthen their own society and their own government. and so i'd be hesitant to punish aid for flood victims in pakistan because of poor decisions by their intelligence services. but there is no doubt that we're not going to feel comfortable with a long-term strategic relationship with pakistan if we don't think that they're mindful of our interest as well. i'll make this the last question.

aamer madhani. >> thank you, mr. president. >> caught you by surprise, huh? >> you did. what should european leaders do to resolve the sovereign debt crisis going forward? and second, how risky is this continued situation to the u.s. economy? and finally, do you feel that the european leaders have been negligent in pushing austerity too soon? >> those are good questions. the biggest headwind the american economy is facing right now is uncertainty about europe, because it's affecting global markets. the slowdown that we're seeing is not just happening here in the united states, it's happening everywhere.

even in some of the emerging markets like china, you're seeing greater caution, less investment, deep concern. in some ways, as frustrating as the financial sector has been here in the united states after the lehmans collapse, the aggressive actions that were taken right after lehmans did help us to strengthen the financial sector and the banking sector in ways that europe did not fully go through. and uncertainty around greece and their ability to pay their debts runs on -- in the capital markets -- on the debt that many of these southern european countries have been facing, as well as ireland and portugal. all that has put severe strain on the world financial system. i speak frequently with

chancellor merkel and president sarkozy, they are mindful of these challenges. i think they want to act to prevent a sovereign debt crisis from spinning out of control, or seeing the potential breakup of the euro. i think they're very committed to the european project. but their politics is tough because, essentially, they've got to get agreement with not only their own parliaments, they've got to get agreement with 20 parliaments, or 24 parliaments, or 27 parliaments. and engineering that kind of

coordinated action is very difficult. but what i've been seeing over the last month is a recognition by european leaders of the urgency of the situation. and nobody is obviously going to be affected more than they will be if the situation there spins out of control. so i'm confident that they want to get this done. i think there are some technical issues that they're working on in terms of how they get a big enough -- how do they get enough firepower to let the markets know that they're going to be standing behind euro members who may be in a weaker position. but they've got to act fast.

and we've got a g20 meeting coming up in november. my strong hope is that by the time of that g20 meeting, that they have a very clear, concrete plan of action that is sufficient to the task. it will have an effect -- it's already having an effect here in the united states, it will continue to have an effect on our economy because the world is now interconnected in ways that it's never been before. and that's one of the biggest challenges that we have post- 2008, after this financial crisis, is that america has always been -- well, over the last 20 years -- has been the engine for world economic growth. we were the purchasers of last resort, we were the importers of last resort, we would stimulate our economies and our american consumers would buy stuff around the world. and so if they got into trouble, they could always say,

well we're going to sell to the u.s. well, we're now going through a situation where families are cutting back and trying to reduce their debts, businesses are more cautious. and the u.s. government obviously has its own fiscal challenges. i mean, we've got to make sure that we're living within our means, although we've got to do it gradually and not in ways that immediately affect a fragile economy. so what that means is, europe is not going to be able to export its way out of this problem.

they're going to have to fix that problem. and part of the goal that i've been trying to promote for the last two years and i'll repeat at the g20 is more balanced economic growth worldwide. we've got to get into a posture where the u.s. is always going to be a big market, and we're going to welcome goods from all around the world, but we've also got to be selling goods around the world. we can't just be running up our debt in order to help other folks' economies. we've got to have -- as not only families, our businesses and our government -- we've got to make sure that we're being prudent and we're producing here in the united states. and by the way, that's what's going to create strong middle- class jobs here in the united states. i think part of what's going on for the country generally is this sense of, you know what, a lot of that debt that had been built up prior to 2008, that we were living on borrowed time because the underlying fundamentals of the economy weren't as strong as they needed to be.

and that's why not only do we have to put americans back to work now, but we've also got to keep on reforming our education system so it's producing the highest-skilled graduates in the world. it's why we've got to keep on investing in basic research and science. it's why we've got to make sure that we're rebuilding our infrastructure. it's why we've got to have a smarter energy policy, because that's a huge source of us having to import from other countries instead of being able to export to other countries. all those things are going to be important, and all those things are going to be challenging. they're going to be hard. but right now, we've got the problem of putting people back to work. that's why congress needs to pass this jobs bill. and last point i'll make, if bill is right and everybody on capitol hill is cynical and saying there's no way that the overall jobs bill passes in its current form, we're just going to keep on going at it. i want everybody to be clear. my intention is to insist that each part of this, i want an explanation as to why we shouldn't be doing it, each component part, putting people back to work rebuilding our roads, putting teachers back in the classroom, tax cuts for

small businesses and middle- class families, tax breaks for our veterans. we will just keep on going at it and hammering away until something gets done. and i would love nothing more than to see congress act so aggressively that i can't campaign against them as a do- nothing congress. all right? thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> john boehner was asked what question he would like to ask the president. he also talked about the president's jobs bill. he is interviewed by "the national journal." >> i am just following directions. welcome. the president is going to have a press conference and in about 10 minutes. i have some familiarity with the news industry. i would give you an opportunity you do not often have. you can ask the president a question that may be translated. >> why have you given up on the country and decided to campaign full-time incident during what the american people sent us here to do, to find common ground, to

deal with the big challenges that tax >> there you go. -- @? >> there you go. agree way to get started. the vice president was on the stage. he said the following. there was a rough agreement between yourself, the vice president, and the president on the debt ceiling. sped what point for you tracking it. he implied that the republican party is divided and weak. that is what is helping them do the deal. >> i sure would. >> all year i talked to the president about the need to do what i called the "big deal. at that it was important for our country to deal with the debt

problem we had. did the best way to get their would be for us to come to some agreement. i put every ounce i can and to try to come with some agreement. he said he needed revenues. i would be willing to do revenues but only if the president were willing to really look at fundamental reform of our entitlement programs which is a big driver of our deficit and debt. i revenues on the table even though the president never said yes to meaningful reform. when the president asked for 400 billion university -- $400 billion, it is when i decided we

would never get there. never got to the point where he would say yes to real changes. i am as far out on a limb as i could possibly walk. i'm trying to come to some agreement. it takes two to tango. >> was a that the legislative record. republicans had defied your request to vote with them. that indicates that there are times were you need house democrats to support you are you cannot keep your own side together. >> there's i question it did. when you look at my colleagues,

these are not freshmen members. these are more senior members. they have been misunderstood. some of our members just what more. i want more. >> what? >> march change. when you have senate control, my job is to move it down the field and get things done. i tried to get as much of it as i can. i want to move the ball down the field on behalf of the american people. >> will you correlate those desires with what is a historic and low assessment? i have been around capitol hill

since 1990. i've never seen a disparity a 7% or more. -- of 700 or more? >> it has been america's favorite whipping boy for 200 years. they are concerned about our country. they do not see the kind of answers they expect. we've got a unique system. we have divided government. our job is to listen to the

american people to express their will as they tried to address the big challenges that face our country. >> you helped create the super committee. what should the public expect? to do believe putting out a proposal before congress and that it may get the deadline extended tax it could all come for not? >> i believe that the congress and the administration has to act. we have a big deficit problem. the problems in europe continue to loom. it is larger than ours. it is incumbent to show that we can do the right thing. it is incumbent to show the rest of the world that they can adjust their challenges as well.

i am firmly committed to ensuring that the super committee come to an outcome. >> i will not predict what they will will not do. there has to be an outcome. >> does your willingness in your conversations with the president to entertain increase in revenue send a signal that you like the committee to hear? >> i made it clear to the republican members>> let me aske senate. there is a currency bill on the floor of the senate. there are 61 co-sponsors of identical legislation. you know this center very well. why are you not supportive? are you going to reassess your assessment of that?

>> there has been concern on my part and from a lot of quarters about how the chinese have manipulated their currency. there has been every effort you can imagine over the last seven or eight years addressing this. there has been a significant improvement in t do what is very difficult to do, i think it is wrong. it is dangerous. you can start a trade war. given the economic uncertainty and around the world it is very dangerous. we shall not be engaged in this. i have made my position clear. i think the president agrees with me.

they made it clear that it is ill-conceived. if charles schumer were here, he would say be spent about 100 business and in this. it would harm them economically. charles schumer describes it. china is a currency bully. >> they have a lot of challenges. believed it is the right thing for our country and the world. building a commercial relationship is in both of our interests. it is probably the largest buyer of agricultural products.

there is a balance here that i think for the long-term good of our country and for our kids and grandkids maintaining this relationship is good. any relationship on not be perfect. you can experience a lot of this. be a demonstration needs to continue to work for the chinese. it is not inappropriate role. >> you mentioned campaigning. i would like to know what degree you are relieved or large sarah palin is running for president. >> i like sarah palin. i know sarah palin. i spent some time with her in alaska before this odyssey of

the past few years. i think se right deor herself. i think she can play a role in upcoming elections. i wish her well. >> di water on the campaign trail with republicans? want her on the campaign trail with republicans? >> you suggested an enormous amount of time campaigning. are you saying it is complicating your efforts to achieve results? >> let me put it this way. i had my share of disappointments this year. i cannot come to an agreement on the big deal. i am disappointed we cannot pass stronger legislation. nothing has disappointed me more than what has happened over the past five weeks.

we are on the hill. we have moved on those that are just moving there. no leadership. i cannot say how dangerous are situation is unfair. he throws in the top. we are legislating. he is campaigning. it is disappointing. >> the vice president said he believes you are a partner of his. you are declaring here and now the president is no longer a

partner of yours. >> i will sit down with the president and a day at any time. i will continue to do that to seek common ground. we have different ideas about what the proper role of the federal government should be. just because we have different views does not mean that we should not be seeking to find a common ground. we have sent the jobs bill up. we sent him a letter back care. whether it'd be the long term highway bill. whether it be a one of the tax credits that he outlined. but that is our job. our job is to find common ground to help our country. while the american people know

we will not always agree, they do expect to get something done. it takes two to tango. i have reset to the president. -- reached out to the president. you have to have a willing partner. send the trade agreements up. here we are on the the eve of the visit by the president of south korea and we are going to have to move these trade bills with expeditious speed in order to maintain our very good relationship with a very good ally. >> the country is approaching the 10th anniversary of the war in afghanistan. to put it mildly, they are conflicted about the ongoing war. what has it achieved? how much longer should continue? secondarily, relating to the war on terrorism, has president obama been as effective, more effective, or less effective

than president bush? >> you have watched over the course of the loss four years. i have been very supportive of the president's decision to stay in iraq and afghanistan. if i have questions or concerns i raised them for -- raise them forthrightly. he has continued the effort to take on the taliban, to take on al qaeda. and to help ensure that america stays secure. i make our number one responsibility as the federal government is to ensure the safety and security of the american people. i think that making sure in afghanistan that the enemy does not have safe ground on which to plan, train, execute attacks on americans and abroad is the goal. we need to have success there. so far, the president has done just fine. >> those who support the president would say osama bin

modern -- laden, drone strikes, have made him more effective than president bush. would you agree? >> clearly, there has been more done under president obama then there was under president bush. in terms of a more aggressive effort. >> this is an idea is warm. i want to broaden the conversation. america loss one of its great innovative minds last night. steve jobs. he had a career that was innovative at the early stages of it, then he was sidelined and he came back to put finer points on it. that is consistent with your trajectory in washington. >> i wanted to get the gist of the question there. [laughter] >> steve jobs tot america about

the power of innovation. will you ever and have you ever worn blue jeans and a black turtleneck? [laughter] >> that would be no and no. we live in the greatest country in the world. our forefathers gave as an economic system that produced opportunities for our citizens on like any country in the world. i came here for one reason. to make sure that those opportunities were available to our kids and grandkids. i think a lot of americans do not believe that the opportunities that we have, all of us in this room have, are going to be available to our kids and grandkids because we are killing the goose that laid the golden egg. it is america's free enterprise system. america's openness. america's diversity. that has allowed us the opportunity to succeed.

and the opportunity to fail. you cannot have one or the other. you are always going to have both. i just think that government has gotten too big. it has gotten way too involved in our society. it has gotten way too expensive. all of that gets in the way of what i would describe as the american dream. but in america, listen, i tell audiences, i was born with a glass half full. i am the optimist. if i was not, i would not be here. i want all americans to believe and understand that they can do whatever they want to do. they can succeed, they can innovate. this is america. i used to go to law school. i do not go too many anymore because i ended up into many

poor schools without any kids. i get a little worked up over it, as you all know. my message to all of these kids in the schools is, listen, you can grow up and be whatever you want to be. i think that most of us have to work for a living. work because it -- and work becomes a life-central activity, so go do something you like. succeed in something you want to succeed in, regardless of what it is. >> on behalf of the washington ideas formed, thank you for your time. [applause] >> more from the atlantic institute and the world ideas for. next, vice president joe biden is interview. then, former vice president dick cheney and his daughter talk with the atlantic.

>> to all of those who were expecting brian williams, he was called off to anger our special report about the president will be speaking in a little while. >> you mean the president is more important than me? [laughter] >> i know where i am. it is great to see you. i would like to start by asking you what you think the world has lost with the passing of steve jobs? >> and you know, i was watching some of the show's last night. his commencement speech in 2005 as stanford. if you have not seen it, you ought to see it. and someone said, i am paraphrasing, this guy democratized technology. in a way that he put in the hands of ordinary people. instruments that were available

to only nasa scientists, doctors in an operating room, and he put it in the hands of ordinary people, the ability to do extraordinary things carry it and that struck me that he had democratized the use of the most advanced technology on earth. i think his contribution is huge. also, his attitude. i watched him saying he gets up every morning, looks in the mirror and asks himself whether or not, if this was the last day of my life, would i be doing what i was doing today? that seemed like how he approached life. that is a hell of a good day. it is the man who gets up in the morning, puts both feet on the floor, knows what is going to do, and still thinks it matters. it matters. >> what kind of impact has that

had not just on news and information, but on the political and policy debates in the country? >> in one sense, it has made policy debates a little more difficult to focus and have in a way that there is no one -- i remember when i first got elected. 400 years ago. [laughter] i remember thinking, this concentration of power, three networks and three outlets, this is -- it should be more open. sometimes i wish there were only three. i would i -- i am not being facetious. there was a large showing of the single most important issues of the day in one place where the debate could be a form of debt was always available. you had 70% of the people

watching the evening news. and it was news. the flip side of that is this democratization has taken on the ability to literally bring down governments, and bring down tyranny, to fundamentally alter the way people organize themselves. on balance, it is much healthier. it does that -- there is no governor. there is no editor. a lot of material gets out into the public's fear that is just speeches. my view is and my deceased wife used to always give me about this and i always said i had faith in the american people. she said, i wonder how much faith you would have had if you lost your first election. they are starting to be able to separate the wheat from the strong. i think on balance, it is

overwhelmingly positive. >> why is the economy getting worse? >> for a number are reasons. it is not that it is getting worse. it is not getting better at the rate it should get better. there are a number of reasons for that. domestically, the things we can control, it will not surprise you to hear -- it will not surprise you to hear me say, the national debt was a serious mistake. thus being downgraded is a psychological impact of the markets here and people's thinking about where we are. it is not within our power, but it is within our that the scare of the faults, the default of greece, whether or not europeans are going to build a fire wall of $700 million to prevent the contagion to move to banks in france or the collapse in italy, they are estimating a

38-50,000 -- 30 million of our units in china that are vacant. people worry about the real estate bubble there. we should focus on the things we can control. we can now control. we can now give it a jump start by passing this jobs bill. the vast majority of the independent balladares say we create between 1.7 and 2 million jobs. it would increase the gdp by a couple of percentage points. the things we can control are the things that frustrates me the most that we are not able to get done. clots what is going to get it done? the president is campaigning for it writ he will talk about it later this morning. even though you believe you are right, you know that in this town, that is not always enough. >> i think what is going to have to happen for to get past i have

a good personal relationship with eric cantor. he is smart. i have a great relationship with john boehner. i know what they are against but i do not know what they are for. i worry whether or not -- there was a report that peter sessions said, after the bill was introduced, obama has his back to the wall. why should we help them? the reason is to help hit not him -- the reason is not to help him, but to help the united states. it would be cutting the payroll tax for businesses as well as employees. he was supporting had just one year ago, including some of the most conservative members. i do not know any republicans out there who have taken the position that we should not be improving infrastructure. i do not know any republican that has taken the position that it does not make sense for us to figure out a way to get a 6 million people who are paying 6%

on their mortgages to pay for% on their mortgages. i do not know what they are against. is this dead on arrival? we have 13 months to have this campaign. we will all kinds of flexibility. these faults cannot wait. how many people do you know are going to go to bed tonight staring at the ceiling, literally wondering whether they are going to be in that house next month? >> this president campaigning -- he is campaigning an argument about tax hikes and selling this bill. he is in campaign mode. do you support what democrats are saying, a surtax on the w ealthy. >> absolutely. we said this is that we would pay for this bill. you have millionaires who think

they should pay more. tea party folks think the millionaire should pay more. republicans think they should pay more. what is the problem? >> this is the argument. i spoke to someone who knows how to tactically move legislation. what happens to get it passed? >> we have to go to the people. that is what the president has decided to do and i have been, as you know, that has been my point of view for a while here. you have a lot of folks who were elected black -- unlike the last time to the congress in 2010 who are in districts where it is not going to matter. you have a lot of folks in the state of pennsylvania, folks who are tea party associated represent swing districts. we should go to the people and be asking everyone of those congress people, "what are you against?" the only way we are going to change this -- we are not wanted

changes by getting the leadership of the republican party to take on membership, but only to communicate to the american people off the wall we are proposing is sound, reasonable, and there is no good reason why republicans in the past who supported it do not support it now. >> do we stimulate -- to slip into a recession if the congress fails to support it further? >> i do not think we will slip into recession if this fails to pass. i do think it will stay sluggish and stagnant if it fails to pastorate there is a concern about recession. it is one of the things you talk about often on meet the press. there is a real concern about europe. we are working as hard as we can with our counterparts in and encouraging europe to do what they know they have to do. it is politically very difficult to do, to build this fire wall.

you can picture a worst-case scenario in the year rose own -- in the eurozone that could be an international contagion. >> i am reading a book that makes the point that our subprime crisis did a lot of damage to our banks, but the government can still bail our backs out. here you have countries that are destroying their banking system. candy eurozone survive with countries like greece failing to meet its budget targets that's correct it can, but these is a wrenching moment they are going through. that got to figure out, are they willing to take the risk needed to take to maintain this union? our belief is they can and our belief is they will. and our hope is they will.

it is interesting to me that you read boomerang and i have not read it. i have not even purchased it yet but there is a lot of talk about it. if you think about what our republican friends are talking about now, i listened to john boehner's speech to the chamber. he talked about liberating the economy in. the last time we did that, we put the middle class in shackles. the fact is everything they're talking about are the very things that got us in trouble. release and liberate wall street from the new constraints. talk about how we are going to increase tax cuts for people, particularly at the upper end. all of the things we tried before. and the very things that got us where we are are the things that are being proposed. we have got to have a head-on debate in this country about their frustration. that what we have done has not

totally corrected the problem. people are still hurting. we understand that. there has to be a debate here whether we continue along the path we are talking about and make the kind of changes we have been unable to make, like their distribution of tax burdens in this country. >> i was just watching cnbc as i came in. they had a corporate guy on they're talking to a squawkbox talking about corporate tax cuts. the problem is, as this guy pointed out, industries are paying 35%. the financial sector is paying 20%. our problem now is, and getting everybody to get in the game. it is not that we are slowing up corporate tax reform. corporations are in disagreement because there are going to be winners and losers.

we talk about the buffettfrule. i call it the reagan rule. this is ronald reagan in 1985. some of these loopholes are understandable, but in practice, and make it possible for millionaires to pay nothing of the bus driver is paying 10% of his salary. don't you think the millionaire should pay more than the bus driver? or you think he should pay less? all that stuff about us talking about class warfare. give me a break. >> most millionaires to pay more. warren buffett is not an outsider. >> all millionaires, not all but the vast majority, pay more money than the bus driver. on a progressive tax rate, they do not pay at the rate they should pay. what warren buffett was talking about was his effective tax

rate, i forget what he said it was, 17% or 18% and his secretary making $55,000 per year is paying 28%. that is not what teddy roosevelt had in mind. that is not what has been the process for the last 100 years. >> let me ask you a question about what is happening in the streets of wall street. the occupied wall street protest movement. do you and the president stand in solidarity with those protesters? [laughter] >> that is a fair question. let's be honest with one another. what is the core of that protest? why is it increasing in terms of the people it is attracting? the core is the bargain has been breached. with the american people. the core is the american people do not think the system is fair or on the level. that is the core of what you are seeing in wall street. that is what started -- by the

way, there is a lot in common with the tea . why did they start? tarp. they thought it was unfair were bailing out the big guys. we have people on the other end of the political spectrum say the same thing. look guys, the bargain is not on the level anymore in the minds of the vast majority of american people. >> our banks the problem in this economy? >> they are part of the problem. why these think -- i know you know -- there is this overwhelming debt reaction to bank of america putting in a $5 fee. the american people know the reason the ceo of the bank of america or any other body in that business is in the business because they, that by making six -- $50,000, bailed him out. bailed him out. put his financial security on the line when his government said, we are going to come up

with over $1 trillion to bail him out. and then they turn around and say, by the way, we are likely only projected to make $17 billion next year, but you know what, here is what we are going to do. the middle class folks, these guys with their debit cards are on their backs and we are going to charge of $5 more to use a debit card. at a minimum, they are incredibly tone deaf. at a minimum. at a maximum, they are not paying their fair share. middle-class people are getting killed. >> and editorial in the wall street journal this morning says, wait a minute, mr. president, mr. vice president, they are responding to your rules. there are restrictions on overdraft protection and so forth. >> that is a little bit like saying to my kid, look, here is the deal. i do not only what you not driving a car when you did he do

not have a license. i call you at of stopping you from doing that. my son says, i can do that and more so now i've got to steal a car. i have got to get a loan someplace. you know what i mean? [laughter] >> is that really the analogy you want to make? >> i am asking seriously. >> i know you're not suggesting that, even the that was an analogy. you're suggesting that are wrong in seeking to make a profit in a different way based on new regulation. there are people will hear this and say, this is the problem with these guys. they are fundamentally anti- business. >> 99% of the american people are not going to make that argument. i'm not worried about how that islam to be perceived by anybody listening to this program. what i am worried about is the failure of the banks to understand that, in a circumstance where it was viewed by the congress responding to the american people that the tax

in affect the was being placed on their purchase of goods when they select a card -- swiped a card is now forcing them to add another fee when they are already making a profit. you can make a lot more profit. there are a lot of things they could do. at least when you charge an extra four bags on airlines, people are angry. but the effort for the last 25 years out airlines are going bankrupt. they hate it, but if they do not do it, the airline will go bankrupt. nobody thinks the banks are going bankrupt. all they're thinking about is, does what, if they are a lot more liquid than they ever were and they're not lending any money. that is what they are thinking. you cannot blame the american people for stealing an overwhelming sense of frustration at this moment when they are hanging on by their fingernails and all of a sudden, they come along and say, okay,

even though we are going to make a healthy profit next year, if we think we need this additional income coming in. >> let me ask you about accountability when it comes to the economy. ratingsident's approval access to 42%. his and your handling of the economy is pretty low. in the efforts that you made as an administration turn the economy around or they didn't and they appear to not have done that. if you are accountable or there's only so much can do. >> it is two things. if you look at all the polls that you cited before, a clear majority of the american people plan their financial strength on the last administration. if they understand what got us in this troubled. they understand it was no regulation, no documentation loans, these wacky instruments that are taking risks on, etc.

they get it. but we are in charge. they're looking to us to fix it. they are frustrated and i do not blame them. if you were ever raised in a household where someone in the house lost their job, you understand the frustration and anger they feel. we are in charge. we have turned it around. we have, but for the local, and the last 15 months, we have created jobs, but not nearly enough. it has been offset by the failure of republicans to support the stimulus efforts we have had to give help to the counties, cities, states, so they have laid off 300,000 teachers. we have taken a hit. i think what they understand is, they understand that we made it better, but not good enough. in with the 42% -- what the 42%

represents is what they feel. if they do not feel enough has been done. that is why i think we need to take this to the american people and say, this is what we want to continue to do to keep us on the road. it is like the car is out of the ditch, it is moving along but only at 25 miles per hour. they are used to going 60. >> that does not sound like a lot of accountability to me. let's look at the facts. the stimulus plan was a big and you got it passed. health care reform was big, you initially thought it was a bad idea in terms of political capital, that got passed. that was sold as part of our economic security. and things have not turned around. there are either limits to what government can do or your in a position of saying, i know we are in charge, but really it is the other guy's fault.

>> there are limits as to how fast government can make up for eight years of profligate spending, no oversight, putting two wars on a credit card, the health care bill on a credit card, the prescription drug bill, a tax cut of several trillion dollars on the credit card. it takes time to get that done. there are limits at how rapidly government can work. there are also limits on what government can do when one party decides they're going to do nothing. they're going to do nothing. nothing. let me say it again, we are going to do nothing. what have they proposed. to stimulate economic growth except the same exact things that "liberated the economy" before.

increase tax cuts for the wealthy. that has not worked. it is very difficult in an environment when one team says, not only are we not to compromise on moving forward, we just think the old method that got us here worked. the american people are frustrated. their frustration israel. at the end of the day, you heard me quoted before on your show, there used to be a mayor in boston who got elected at age 29. i got up at age 30 to do any event and kevin white was the phenom who bought elected. in 1972, he was in trouble for running for reelection. the press called him a wise guy and a hot shot and ask him how he felt now. he looked at them and i will never forget what he said. he said, "do not compare me to

the almighty. compare me to thethis is about . >> let me ask you, just to but not down, this president does not have a partner among republicans on capitol hill. >> i think he does have a partner. the bulk of the leadership is seriously hamstrung. i can tell you without, in any way violating confidence, i think john boehner would tell you, eric cantor would tell you, we had a much bigger proposal. i was personally negotiating it with them, as to how to deal with the debt crisis. they could not sell it. i believe if eric cantor, this is joe biden, he is going to have to say no. i have a bad habit of saying

what i believe. >> i do not want to get in the way of that now. [laughter] >> this is joe biden's impression. i believe if eric cantor, joe biden, barack obama, john boehner, were allowed to settle a deal we would have had a deal -- >> that is not how it works. they are not strong enough leaders to get it passed. is that your view? >> my view is that the -- their party is not the republican party. one of the worst things that has happened is we need a strong republican party. we need a republican party that is united. we need a republican party you can sit down with and say, ok, this is a deal, can you deliver? i think part of what this is about is going over the heads of the congress, to the people, to

their constituents, and make the case. for the people to respond to our arguments or there's and decide whether or not they are going to put pressure on their congresspersons to support the bill or not. >> you have said two person things that interest me. not the almighty, but the alternative. and that this is not a strong republican party. is it strong enough for its nominee to beat this president? >> absolutely. strong enough to beat both of us. no matter what the circumstance, at the end of the day, the american people, right now, many of them are in real trouble. an even larger percentage have stagnant wages. a significant majority of the american people believe that the country is not moving in the right direction.

that is never a good place to be going into reelection. whether it is your fault or not. it is sometimes a irrelevant. what i am counting on, i am counting on the judgment of the american people to decide. they nailed the -- they know the whole we are in. they know how far we have come out. they are dissatisfied how fast we are going. they are going to have to choose whether the path we have set is the path we should continue to go or we should go back to liberating the economy in the terms -- >> the president said he is an underdog. my question is, with the enthusiasm he was swept into office, the tears on election night, people were so full of hope. how did that happen? >> look, make a comparison --

when franklin roosevelt came into office, we had been in flat depression for two years, no one had any doubt about how we got there. when we got sworn in and we had the parade and the president and i were sitting out in front of the white house, after work, we both walked back in. we sat behind the desk and he said, joe, we bought in too high. if we had been sworn in on march 20, it would have been even clearer how we got where we were. that does not matter. we are in charge. we are in charge now. the fact of the matter is, the american people are dissatisfied with the state of the nation. that, all by itself, is enough to make you the underdog. if you look at it statistically, former

presidents when unemployment has been this high have had great difficulty winning. look at the facts. at the end of the day, this ends up being a situation with the american people are going to have to make a choice. our job as leaders is to lay out clearly for the american people, this is not a referendum, this is a choice. if you do not like what we are doing, we understand it. >> will you prevail? >> i think we win. >> who is the nominee against you? >> i have spent 30 years trying to figure out the democratic party. [laughter] with little success. i have no idea. >> thank you. i only wish this were sunday morning. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [applause] >> i can also run.

>> great to see you. >> this is an interesting and important opportunity. when it comes to vice president, having an incumbent vice president and his immediate predecessor within an hour of each other, it is an enviable opportunity for anyone. you get to compare frameworks and it joe biden is a distinctive and important as president. dick cheney ab of all vice president, has had the most powerful, distinctive, and used that office in ways others had not. there was a critique of some of the issues going on. walter mondale to credit for the powerful as presence by saying his was the first powerful

office in the white house. it had grown at the time. when i was in the middle east last year with liz cheney, we see the world a bit differently. she had been and senior official and the state department and work closely with her father. we can to the important of talking about national decision making process is. that may bore a lot of people. .hat is not up or down we had a productive discussion about the structure of decision making and how one organizes the executive decisions that come in point of crisis. it has what led me today. even though liz cheney is known by her father as the ceo of this important book, "in my time." i wanted to do something that is outside of the format. i wanted to challenge list to

give her father tough question. i am going to be the monitor. i will not intervene. this is not a normal engagement of a journalist with a talent. there are important ties between them. i want vice president ginny to fess up on what he did not agree with in his -- vice-president cheney to fess up on what he did not agree with in his biography. >> i thought i might start. you mentioned as president biden was here. i understand -- vice president biden was here. he -- i understand he said president obama has fixed to the economy. >> we have serious economic problems. i disagree on a number of things. that would be one. i do not think it has been fixed.

i think it needs radical tax reform, reduction, and regulations. i do not see the administration putting forth a policy that is going to do the job. >> do you see, given the state of the economy, the polls, they pass for president obama in 2012? >> i think he is going to have trouble. prime president obama maybe the jimmy carter of the 21st century. he is going to get one term. he will leave under similar circumstances to what happened in the carter administration. >> back to the book, during your time as vice-president you took some heavy criticism including from some folks in this room.

i know it is hard to believe. [laughter] does it bother you? >> when you are a former vice president, no. [laughter] they were up against jay leno and david letterman. you have to have a thick skin. my approach was, my concern was, we have some special problems. every administration always does. in our case, it was the war on a terror, the aftermath of 9/11, the need to pursue some tough, aggressive, controversial policies. that is what we believed was necessary in order to protect the country. i would argue it worked. we got seven and a half years that nobody ever thought we would. that involves things like enhanced interrogation techniques and the terror

surveillance program and things that broke china, created controversy, that people disagreed with. my job was to be the point man on some of those policies. at the same time, a lot of them were classified. important elements were classified so you could not talk about it much in a public setting. i ended up, and fully expected, the criticism is what it is and i took my fair share of shots. i did not feel personally abused. except once or twice. [laughter] >> some have said, even in light of the success in the national security area, particularly, of the bush administration, that the most affective or one of the

most affected national security 41 team.was the bush 1 would you agree with that and say why people see that as affected? >> i should defer to henry kissinger on who had the best team. the three of us worked well together. we had all worked together before. back in the four years, -- ford years, i had been the chief of staff, jim managed the campaign. there was a well established a set of relationships. there were a couple of other rules we were bound by. we got together every wednesday morning for breakfast. the status of the various departments learned --the staffs

of the various departments learned that if he wanted to get something decided to get it on the agenda for that meeting. they knew we were talking to each other all the time. it cut down the amount of noise inside the system. it cut down the amount of leaks that otherwise would have occurred. jim and brent and i, nobody occurred jim of not leaking. we worked hard to avoid those kinds of conflict that would come out of that. i think we were successful. our personal relationship was good. >> best job you have ever had? >> each one was different and unique. if i had to pick one out that was at the top of the list, working for ford at an early age as chief of staff. being a vice-president of the

united states. all of those have a lot going for them. they were great jobs. [laughter] i would have to say, if i had to pick one, i would say secretary of defense. >> why? >> because of the association with the u.s. military. the time we were there, i had the opportunity, the end of the cold war, the berlin wall came down. we were able to do some remarkable things in terms of the wrenching our military forces, if you will. and then -- rearranging our military forces, if you will. and then desert storm. the opportunity to work closely with the men and women of the military was really remarkable. >> when you look at the 2012 candidates, on our side, what did you hope and what worries

you? -- what gives you hope and what worries you? >> how is she doing? >> pretty good, i might have guessed that one. [laughter] >> i have not endorsed anyone yet. i have stayed away from the contest. they do not need my advice. if they do, i would give it to them privately. i would not say it publicly. these next couple of months are going to be very important. there is the opportunity for the public to get a look at them. there is a lot yet to be proven out in terms of confidence, capability, experience, the ability of the various candidates to deal with tough issues, especially in the national security area. the economy is so dominant as an issue that that is what everyone is focused on.

i am very concerned that we not lose sight of how important it is that we maintain our vigilance in the global war on terror. the cleanup do damage, permanent damage -- that we do not do damage, permanent damage, to our defensive capabilities. the entitlement programs, the fact we have not dealt with social security and medicare -- you can not save enough of of the defense department to solve the debt problem. if you take too much about it is going to do serious damage. when i took over, we had 18 active divisions in the u.s. army. today we have 10. there has been a dramatic restructuring over the last decade or so, the last 20 years.

there is no cold war for still out there. they'd be a few systems left over. there are not -- maybe a few systems left over. there are not big savings to be had. i am worried that we could end up doing serious damage. i want to know what the candidates think about that proposition and how they propose to deal with the defense issue and the budget question going forward. >> when you look at the national security set of issues, he said that president obama ought to apologize for some of the criticism, and in particular, his statements about us abandoning our ideals in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. could you explain that? but they denied it. >> they admitted that they abandon our ideal. they do not think that is of bounds.

-- that they said we abandoned our ideals. they do not think that is out of bounds. i brought up the speech in 2009. i was asked by the interviewer how that fits. i looked at it within the context of the grown a strike -- drone strike. that was a situation where when he went to cairo he did announce that we had overreacted to 9/11, that we had walked away from our ideals, that president obama had been the one to bring an end to torture in order that they're not be any torture, implying that we were torturing, and we were not. in light of the fact that they are pursuing aggressive measures, which i support, they

did the right thing, they are at a point now where they were executed in affect. late that alongside our enhanced interrogation -- lay that alongside our enhanced interrogation and they might want to reconsider cairo. did i leave something out? >> yes, but we can talk about it later on. when you look at the five presidents -- republican president since eisenhower, he worked for four of them. which was the best? [laughter] >> i am not going to answer the question. [laughter]

>> i hope she does not give up. >> but i am struck by is i look back over them, i was trained to look for common threads and problems and james across a -- problems and themes across administrations. what i am struck by is the extent to which there were vast differences between administration. especially with the man in the oval office. they all got a set of different experiences to the office. they all had their own strengths and weaknesses based on what they had done before. they all had -- found it necessary to deal with unanticipated situations. if you look at our last administration, george w. bush's

administration, there was a little bit of speculation about the problem of homeland security before 9/11, but 9/11 changed everything and it dominated our agenda for the last seven years in office. when you think about what the first bush administration had to deal with, of course, dramatically different. we did not anticipate that we would end up sending men and women to the desert, to the gulf, to liberate kuwait and push the iraqis back into iraq. every single administration ends up with a surprise. the nixon administration, you never would head at that of richard nixon would impose wage price controls on a free -- you never would have bet that richard nixon would impose wage

price controls on a free economy. i was part of that. i do not put that on my résume . >> allow me one. >> best secretary of state you ever worked with? or worst. >> i would have two on my list. one would be henry kissinger. i say nice things about him in my book. the other would be jim baker. very different kinds of individuals, but in terms of dealing with the problems and issues of the day, i think henry, the thing i only found remarkable about doctor kissinger, he is still here, that is why i am saying, all

these nice things -- you think about the conditions he had to operate under. it is the only time we had a president resigned under threat of impeachment. secretary kissinger went through that whole process, managed the transition in the national security arena very incredibly. i always remember the first thing ford said after we knew nixon was going to resign if he went out in front of his house and announced that secretary kissinger would continue in his job. he did not say about the rest of us. [laughter] to have managed affairs and done it as ably as he did, with the difficult problems we faced as a nation at that point and the war in vietnam and with the soviets and china and so forth, that was

a remarkable set of accomplishments under the most difficult political conditions i could imagine. what if i may, this is unscripted. -- >> if i may, this is unscripted. my colleagues at the museum have brought in such a diverse group of political players. everyone from vice president biden at 2 john boehner -- biden to john boehner. thinking of the national security decision making structure that he built, there has been some critique that you and runs held at the time essentially took over a process that was broken. there has been a lot of focus on the question, how do you get the structure right, but then who is president. when you have so many problems and players, can you talk about how ford did it in the decision

making, how george w. bush did it. what is your friendly critique of the obama administration's decision making structure, does that matter? >> we spend a lot of time talking about structure. sometimes when we get into trouble -- for example, the reaction to 9/11 when we reorganized the whole intelligence community. i am not sure structure is the problem. there is the tendency to think we can move the boxes around on the chart, shift or transfer authority from one place to another the but i come back to something i mentioned earlier, i am convinced that what makes it work of the individuals and the relationships they have with their colleagues. it is not enough that you know the others involved, it is

whether or not he worked together. we talked earlier about that we had all work together previously in the ford administration and it was a big help. we had run into problems initially. we had an opportunity to support a coup in panama. by the time we got our act together, it had failed, the potter had been killed, -- the plotter had been killed. what we had not done is we had not worked as a team. we do not do a good enough job in the tradition of getting the new team together and getting them -- in the transition of getting the new team together

and getting them to look at the problems. look at the previous times where we have had to use power. what happens in the transition is to bring in the new crowd and debriefed them -- and he briefed them. you scare the out of them. you say, this is how you unleash the nuclear inventory on the world. it is a very sobering brief. odds are, you are not going to do that during the course of your administration. what you do not it is any work during that period of the transition of getting national security players together and having them actually go back, look back at what their predecessors did, pull out three or four hypothetical, have somebody set up a couple of good games for you, and have them get used to functioning with each other on the kinds of problems that they are going to run into.

i am not aware -- that has never happened in and at the discretion. >> i only said you could have one question. >> is there anything you would redo -- >> before you ask that, though. talking about training and practicing and exercising, how much of your past experience, and the continuity of government texas as is, did you think about on that morning -- government exercises, did you think about on that morning of 9/11. >> it had a big impact. it turned out to have been very useful. a lot of the program is still classified. the program that existed for how you would preserve the government and the authority of the government in the event of an all out global conflict. i had been involved in that

program over the years and we had -- that is one place where we had actually done some exercises. it was one of those things that clicked in that morning. most important was to make certain you did not have all the leadership bunch up into one spot so our adversaries could decapitate the government. that is why the president stayed away for a while that morning. i was in the white house. we've got others to a safe and secure location. the next in line. it gave us an agenda to work on in those early hours of the attack. >> do you think that is why you were able to focus on the specifics of what needed to be done as opposed to the drama of the fact that we were under attack? were you able to set aside the emotions? >> the other thing that was very

important was getting the planes down. the secretary of transportation -- >> he is here, actually. >> he did great morning -- work that morning. those were our two parties, getting all the planes down -- priorities, getting all the planes down so we could figure out which plans had been hijacked. we were told there were six. there were only four. and to take the steps to guarantee the survival of somebody who had legitimate authority as president of the united states. >> liz cheney-like question. if you had the chance to review or rethink or take a different step, what would that happen? it is the request question. do you have any regrets about things you might have done?

>> do i have any regrets. you want something from my time as vice-president. >> you can broaden it. >> wage-price control. i mentioned that in my first chapter of my book. my misspent youth, i would reduce some of that again. i think, basically, -- i would redo some of that again. i think, basically, we got it right. i believe in the policies pursued. with respect to what we needed to do to keep the countries eighth, -- the country safe, from my perspective, it worked. we achieved our objective.

under those circumstances, you do not -- politicians like to give up. that is important. >> do you feel loved? >> do i feel loved? >> he is loved. >> my grand kids. [laughter] if i had to choose a i would rather be respected. that meant that some of the things we had to do had to be done even though we knew they were going to be controversial. you cannot operate under those conditions without breaking some china. i am sure we did. if i had to do it over again, i would. >> were you really secretly running things? >> no.

>> really? >> let me tell you one story that tells you how much power i have. we had a great dog named dave, a big yellow lab. we used to take him up to camp david some time. he loved it up there, choosing the squirrels and so forth. one morning i took him down to the big dining room and the president's office and so forth. was the in thand their president's scottie. it looked a lot like a squirrel. [laughter] >> i am sure that has just been tweeted. >> the lack of love chasing squirrels. he chased him around the dining room table. they made a couple of circles above the table when i heard the president, he stepped into the

room and said what the is going on here. it is a reasonable question. i grabbed dave, and said dave, treat. i got him a doughnut and headed out the door. i got him on the golf cart and drove up to the cabin where greece. i got dave inside. 15 minutes later -- cabin where the worst thing. i got dave and side. 50 minutes later there was a knock on the door. it was the camp commander. until further notice, he said, your dog dave is banned from the log. -- lodge. the president never said a word to me. but that tells you who is running the show. >> are you sure that came from the president? what is no doubt. the captain was not happy to be transmitting messages. it all worked out all right. >> i think we could close by

having you tell, what were the most important lessons you learned from working on this book together. i am sure there is a long list. >> you had one ruled that i tried to abide by which was, if in doubt, it out. >> my rule is put more and. -- in. >> one of the great satisfactions of the book was working with liz. >> can you deviled your biggest argument over the book. >> no, because we left it out. [laughter] there is something remarkable about having your eldest child interested enough in high use that to a life to have them sit there for two years and listen to you tell old war stories. that is basically what we did. it really added enormously to the satisfaction of the product

and the project and i would not dream of doing another book without her. this point, we have not signed on to do any more books. we are still resting up from the last one. it really was, it made the whole proposition -- when liz was willing to sign on. >> i want to thank you both for joining us. congratulations on the book and your work. thank you so much for being here. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> more from the atlantic. next, the former pakistani president is interviewed by the chairman of the atlantic media company. the president talks about relations between the u.s. and his company for about 20 minutes.

>> how are you doing? >> mr. president. good morning, mr. president. i was struck as i began to do background reading by this fact, the president is exactly 10 years older than i ever. the volume of what he has worked into his 68 years, so surpasses my 58 years. let me give you a run. born in 1943. the president's earliest memories were being on that night train traveling to pakistan as it was being greeted as a country. he lived with 18 people in a two room apartment. his family moved to turkey where the president learned a turkish. he came back and was not a model citizen in high school. i have three teenage boys.

he greeted a small time bombs during his high school years. he was chief of the artist's death for 13 years. chairman of the draw and keep us -- he was chief of the army for 13 years. chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. he became president of pakistan. there have been six assassination attempts. he has fought in two wars. one marriage, two daughters, two dogs. a fantastic run. let me begin with that odd tell us the story -- odd coup. tell us the story. >> i was in that sri lanka. i returned on a commercial flight. there were 300 passengers. 90 of them were school students.

as we approached the airport, we came down to about 8,000 feet, the pilot called me to the top that and when i went there he told me we are not being allowed to lend -- land. then they said you cannot land in pakistan, it out of pakistani airspace. that was quite a shock but i presumed that this must involve me. why else would such an order be passed? when we rose to 21,000 feet, the pilot said that we can either go to an airfield in the gulf or in india. that could be unimaginable for

me to land in india as the army chief. so, therefore, when we rose to 21,000 feet i was told we do not have fuel to go out of pakistan. i said, tell the people, i was not in contact with anyone on ground. the negotiation between the pilot and the aircraft a controller allowed us to land there. he was taking about five or six minutes. he was passing messages to the prime minister of pakistan and then getting back what to say. this was taking a lot of time. i told him to land, irrespective. he said there are people on the runway, so we cannot land, and all the lights have been switched off. all of this kept on going until finally when he said we do not

have a fuel. they allowed us to go to a recovery airfield which was no.. -- north. action took place on brown. -- ground. i was not in contact. the army acted. the pilot got a message from the air traffic controller that said we are in charge, you come back now and a land. i went back. the pilot said we have just enough fuel. you make the decision. i said go back. when we landed, we had only eight minutes of fuel. when i landed, i was in charge of pakistan. >> many of us have had bad flights and not have its work

out that well. [laughter] we move forward to 2004, there is apoll taken, president musharraf is the most popular president in the world. you were publicly supportive of president bush, of the united states and the war on timber. we were spending $2 billion in security pete -- or on a terror. we were spending two billion dollars on security. a poll in pakistan shows that the united states is viewed as the number won a security threat on the country. there is concern about the way pakistan is going and whether it is a good outlet. the best thing we can understand is what went wrong? when you were president, did you already see the relation slipping away between the united states and pakistan?

>> now they are, yes. in my time, there were no doubt in my mind, we had a degree of constant confidence. the relations between states have a lot to do with interpersonal relations between the leaders. i had a relationship with president bush and colin powell. when there were any doubts or misunderstandings, we could bring up each other and talk directly. as colin powell is to say, let us talk gentleman to gentleman. i wonder whether that exists now, that understanding, that mutual confidence, may be is not there. there is a total breakdown of trust and confidence. that is what is harming the relationship. >> what do you think that the united states does not

understand that makes pakistani not trust us? let us do people on the street first. what do we not understand about why they are upset? >> i do not like cote -- to go into too much detail. in the past, we were strategic partners with the united states. between 1990 we were with the united states to fight against the soviet union. in 1989, suddenly, the united states decides to quit the area with no rehabilitation, no resettlement, 25,000 we brought. when that happened, sanctions on pakistan. this was seen as extremely negative by the people of pakistan. we had been used and then

betrayed. this was the feeling of the people of pakistan. >> is there feeling like that today? >> yes. the feeling is this happened and for 12 years we were abandoned, we were all alone. fending for ourselves. the taliban came up in 1996 and pakistan was all alone, fending for itself. then comes 9/11 and the united states appears again. we are again in the lead role. now people are asking, how are we not going to be betrayed again? that we will not be used and betrayed again? this is the historical past which has led to a mistrust and and that the against the united states. until 1989, everything was happening for pakistan. what happened beyond 1989?

i told you. now that we are planning to leave in 2014, that has had its impact on the people again. now pakistan has to think, now i am not in government, i am not speaking on behalf of the government. my personal view is that there must be someone else is going on about what will happen if the method state -- must be some analysis going on about what will happen if the united states leaves. are we return to 1996 with two groups to metallic and purses northern alliance? one of the configurations will certainly be there. its impact will be on pakistan and secondly it will be on india and then of course the world. we have to be very conscious of what other indications we are putting in the situation that is

unstable and pakistan. we have to analyze all of this and the impact on pakistan. >> it is hard for americans to understand the frame through which some pakistanis view this relationship. let me do that over. the significance of india. what is the concern that pakistan has, is it its largest concern and do you think we do not understand that? >> i would imagine you do not understand. i can see that you could show a lack of concern. there is an issue with india. we have fought wars which is terrible and which have to be

resolved. i am a strong believer that we have to resolve our disputes and have peace. i have been called in india that i am a man of war because i have fought two wars and i am a military man and a soldier. i am a man of war but i am a man for peace. i understand the ravages of war which few people understand because my son is named after my best friend who got killed in action. therefore, i understand it ravages, how much you suffer in war. therefore, i am a man for peace. >> what do you think india's ambition is? >> having said that, over the past decade, since 1950, sent our independence, the two countries -- this has been happening all over these decades. this must go.

we must resolve this dispute. in the past three years or four years, this manifestation, there is some kind of a proxy conflict going on between pakistan and india. india is trying to create an anti-pakistan idea. >> what is its ambition? >> ambition? to have a week pakistan. so that it can be dominated, so that it does not have any confrontational attitude which does not go well with india's vision of dominating the reason and being a regional power. >> it is not a military concern, it is a preeminent, trade -- >> dominance in today's world,

dominating a country does not mean they want to take over. i do not think that can happen. we helped bangladesh independence. they have not taken over bangladesh. it implies dominating foreign policy, their economic policy, their trade, the commerce. that is how you suppress, how you control or dominate another country. >> where does this problem rank in your concerns? is this the largest concern you have? >> it is not such a great concern, if at all. we know that afghanistan's intelligence, a diplomat, soldiers, security people, they all go to india for trading.

pakistan and i had offered them training free of cost and pakistan, to all of them. not one man has come to pakistan for training. they go to india. therefore, we received intelligence, diplomats, soldiers, indoctrinated against pakistan. this is what we must understand that must stop. india must stop it and the united states must understand pakistan's concern about what is happening in afghanistan. the united states needs to understand pakistani's sensitivities. there is a lack of concern for pakistani sensibilities. >> let me tell you two issues we do not understand. the first one, where bin laden was found. if he was there for fiv and we do not know, he would have been there during your

presidency. i have heard you speak -- explain why you do not believe the army knew his location. >> i think this is a particular issue. it is terrible. let me admit it is a terrible thing that has happened. it has to be clarified by pakistan. people i know of do not believe there was an issue of complicity versus negligent, that is the issue. was pakistan complacent or was it negligent? through all my analysis, i say it was up the steep, it was negligence. why do i say that -- it was not complicity, it was negligent. why do i say that? if he was there for five years, two years was in my time. i did not know. therefore, i am a 500% ashore --

500% sure. there is no complicity. let us come to those three years. i do not think there was complicity because, first of all, nobody in that area knew that osama bin laden was inside. all of the pakistanis -- we are very independent, they have and to the people around. none of them, not one of them knew that osama bin laden was inside. when he is not using any communication, you are banking on human intelligence. human intelligence is what people are telling you around. that was not the case. secondly, a lot of people think the house had such high walls, such a huge house. i have seen this on television. you do not have walz around your house.

in pakistan, every house has a wall. this is not anything unusual i do not see that house to be anything unusual. it is a slightly bigger house than an average house. i do not see anything unusual in this. thirdly, if he was there, there would have been some security around. such an important personality left alone and guarded? -- unguarded? why would he not be used as a bargaining chip that's what would i not have used it as a bargaining chip? therefore, i think it is a pure case -- another point, people misread. this was a town of about 500,000, roughly. it is a tourist resort.

people stay there in hotel. it is absolutely open. anyone going to the mountain goes through the town. the garrisons, the training centers, they are open for people to go and. it is open. it is not a wild place we -- a walled place we are talking of. it is not complicity, it is a terrible case of negligence that must be explained by puppis done. the x -- by pakistan. they owe an explanation to the world. why was there such serious negligence? we must not believe it was complicity because that would be very serious. maybe we are not together in the war against terror. >> because we are out of time, let me explain that president

musharraf is under an arrest warrant in pakistan but tends to go back in 2012 and intends to win the presidential election in 2013. i will be returning to my office where i will be busy with important things. when we see you next, you'll have lived another adventure. thank you so much for coming. [applause] thank you. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> later, the boss says he will not return to peace talks with israel. his remarks are next on c-span. then the house blocks a resolution of by congressman jesse jackson that would have condemned rick perry's use of a hunting cabin whose name contains a racial slur.

later, president obama's news conference. on tomorrow's "washington the journal" former new hampshire senator will talk about efforts to cut the deficit and reform the tax code. then a discussion with leo hindrey who is part of a group that wants to raise taxes on millionaires. later, jack buckley will join us to talk about how u.s. students are doing in math and reading. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 eastern. but during deliberations, the only people allowed in the supreme court does so east conference room of the nine justices. who gets the door? >> i was paying very close attention to the discussion. i built to hear the knock on the door. -- i failed to hear the knock on the door.

on my left and on my bike, they both got up and answered the door. i learned from that that one of the most important jobs of aid jr. justice is to remember you are a doctor man. >> john paul stevens with his new memoir, "5 chiefs." >> earlier, palestinian authority president called on europe to support his government post a bid for full statehood in the united nations. he officially made this last month. this is a little over an hour. >> dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to look, mr. abbas, chairman of the

committee of the palestinian liberation organization and president of the palestinian national authority. we will be taking questions from the colleagues. dear president, it is an honor to welcome you to this chamber. it gives me great pleasure to greet a courageous man, a skillful politician, a diplomat, and a statement. although, on this later issue, high-technology it is even more difficult to be a statesman without a real state. your presence in this chamber today is fraught with symbols. it is symbolic that after making an historic move two weeks ago at the general assembly of the- nations, you come to address this house. a house which is a couple of

democracy, human rights, and all. it is equally symbolic that you are addressing this assembly immediately after the palestinian nation -- the status which was brought to palestinians and the assembly. >> qb a listening ear, a waffle iron, and helping hand. and for the palestinian nation and counsel to fully embrace these same principles. in this context, we praise the achievement of the palestinian nation under your leadership and your efforts to bring real consolation to palestinians on the basis of universally recognized values. it is symbolic that your visit is happening against a background of the arab spring.

to have firmly believe that the only way to establish peace and stability is through democracy, respect for all human rights, and the rule of law. as you said last month in new york, the time is now for the palestinian spring. a time for independence. beyond the symbolic day, there is illegality. the equitable reality of the palestinian people dispersed around the world and can not view its own common home. this situation cannot last any longer. palestinians should have their own state, and i am referring to the numerous -- a palestinian state side by side with that of israel, with secure and recognized borders and through negotiating the legitimate

aspirations of the two people. in its contents -- in this context, the cooperation between the council of europe and the emerging democracies in the arab world, we invited members of the united nations security council, the ticket with those of our member states to support the palestinian record to join the united nations as a full member states. especially in the context of the arab spring, and democracy will be facilitated the by finding a solution to the main complex which remain. what will be referred to the middle east, it is no longer an association with complex. we can believe that it can be saturated with ideas of democracy and human rights. we know this is why you're here

with us today. once again, welcome, mr. president. you have the floor. [applause] >> in the name of god and compassion and muslims, your excellency, president of the parliament of the assembly of the council of europe, ladies and gentlemen, distinguished members of the assembly, peace be upon you. it honors me to be with you here today in this august assembly to

address you, elected representatives of the nations of your of and the living conscience of the people. in bodying the values of freedom, justice, and human dignity. i have come from palestine, a land of peace where the monotheistic religions have always coexisted. i have come to you bearing a message of peace from the people whose roots go deep in the land over thousands of years as a homeland and continues despite the pain and suffering. the epic journey towards the noble goal of freedom and independence. ladies and gentlemen. two weeks ago, as president of

the state of palestine and chairman of the executive committee of the palestine liberation organization, a representative of the palestinian people, i presented a request to the secretary general of the united nations to accept the state of palestine as a full member of the organization, and i explained before the general assembly and the reason that made me take such a step. two decades have gone by since the madrid peace conference, and 18 years have gone by since the signing of the agreement in washington. according to which, and we should have a arrived at a time not beyond the fifth of may 19, 1999. we should have reached agreement over final peace that

was established, an independent palestinian state that will live side by side with the state of israel in peace and security. since that day, and our people are waiting patiently. they're waiting for the implementation of the entitlement, however. without any results. how long can this go on? despite that, we have no opportunity, but we tried to reach a solution through negotiations. we accepted without any reservations a road map, although we have many observations. we came up against the evasiveness of the israeli government from negotiations on this basis, we accepted the invitation of the former u.s. president, george w. bush.

and those negotiations did achieve some progress in due to the recognition of the israeli government. the acceptance of the 1967 borders and the principal of territory with equal value and equal size, the change of the israeli government soon lead to the negotiation process when the u.s. president was elected. we demonstrated of limited cooperation with his administration and we agreed to all of the proposals made for the resumption of negotiations, the director round of negotiations launched in washington in september of 2010.

at a peace agreement in that time not exceeding one year, we enter those negotiations with open hearts and with honest intent. however, we came up against the evasiveness of the israeli government from any serious negotiations over final status issues. harvey took advantage of the launching of elections to incentivize the settlement activities in jerusalem and the rest of the occupied west bank. does the government refused to resume negotiations from where they had reached a whiff of the former government of the prime minister, and they insisted on returning to zero. they refused to based on the of decisions of international legitimacy.

and they refused to discuss any issues related to borders or any of the final status issues. , this is a sensitive issue to israel. we are all aware of this. we had an understanding with the israeli government, with the former israeli government and the former u.s. administration as well as egypt and jordan on a speculative or arrangements to safeguard palestinians and israelis through a third-party. but the israeli president turned down all of that and insisted on a security concept that is unacceptable based on expansion and colonization by annexing jerusalem and the land in west

of the separation wall. which means over 40% of the territories as well as insisting on maintaining a military bases in the death of the west bank territories. if these demands are accepted, where would-be palestinian state be? are two contradictory issues. they are incompatible. the building of settlements in occupied territories and housing centers there by occupying forces is a flagrant violation of international law and a clear breach of the geneva conventions. as well as a breach of the agreement signed between the palestine liberation organization and israel.

that we have the necessity requisite for the resumption of the peace is not a precondition. it is a commitment imposed by the road map and the peace if it only depends on palestinians respecting their commitment whereas israel turns its back to all its consequences. settlement activity has expanded it to the point of constituting a major danger that would undermine the foundations of the two-state solution. like the signing of the agreements, the number of settlements have gone up 300%. in daily, we have declarations of new plans and the centers to build thousands of new settlement units.

what complicates matters further is that the government of israel insists on unattainable preconditions, untenable preconditions that have no references in the frame of reference for the freeze process for the divisions of international legitimacy. we recognize the state of israel, requiring us to recognize it as a jewish state is a precondition that cannot be accepted because it threatens to transform the conflict into a destructive religious conflict and jeopardize his or the future of more than 1 million palestinians and the citizens of the state of israel. and the whites of the right of the palestinian refugees, and gives cover for greater expansion is complex that would jeopardize the opportunity for a

two-state solution. in our commitment to international legitimacy, we recognize the state of israel according to what has been negotiated, and these were written in an exchange of letters between late leaders in the year 1993. this issue was a close to one. any attempt to reopen it is an attempt to create a new pretext to place an impediment. on the other hand, we have the right to raise the question, why does israel refused to recognize the state of palestine? we have the firm to our acceptance of international legitimacy when the palestinian national council and the year 1988 decided to adopt the palestinian peace program based

on the two-state solution. the independent state of palestine with its capital east jerusalem and the land occupied by israel in 1967, namely over 22% of historical land of palestine is a state that will live side by side in peace and security with the state of israel. the staff was painful and difficult, but it aims to achieve the historical settlements that would allow peace between the people. this program continues to constitute the foundation on which the arab peace initiative was based. it was an initiative by the league of arab states and the on member states of the islamic organization. we are speaking of 57 islamic and arab states.

this expresses the readiness of all the states to establish normal relations with israel within the framework of a comprehensive and lasting peace that would secure the withdrawal of israel from all occupied palestinian and arab territories to the borders of june 1967 and the establishment of the state of palestine with the capital as jerusalem as well as establishing a fair solution to the question of refugees in accordance with the un resolution and provide security and peace to all the states of the region. we continue to call on the israelis to take this opportunity, that provides for them a security to live in peace with the people of the region, in which lies the real security for them and for their children. for peace and what makes

security, it is not my military might or hegemony or geographic expansion, you cannot maintain peace by force, but only through understanding. the president, ladies and gentlemen, in eastern jerusalem, the palestinian population faces a systematic policy of ethnic cleansing that includes destruction of their homes, the expansion of the population, and the withdrawal of the identification papers, including persecution of the elected representatives with the aim of expelling them from their city. and to restrict access ability in addition to ongoing excavation is that threaten the foundations. in addition, the city is suffocated and isolated from the palestinian environment through a settlement and the forces of

occupation continue the incursion into the areas of the palestinian national authority. they have given free rein to the armed the settlement demolished out. it is a special protection of the occupation army to carry out attacks against a defenseless and palestinian population, targeting their homes, fields, crops, and trees. distrait the blockade continues against the strip, which is a form of collective punishment imposed on the innocent population. in addition to the different attacks, to complete the aims of the aggressive war against this trip that started three years ago and brought about a huge

distraction. occupation authorities held in that prison over 6000 palestinian prisoners, including 21 representatives of the different parliamentary groups that have declared this only a few days ago, a hunger strike in protest against of the difficult and humiliating conditions they live under. we want to see them free, among members of their families. mr. president, ladies and gentleman, in spite of all the israeli obstacles, the palestinian national authority has worked throughout the years to implement programs that aim to spread and disseminate to the

culture of peace and justice and democracy, and to upgrade the unpreparedness of palestinian institutions to meet the entitlement of independence in accordance with the report prepared by the committee, based on the evaluations of the word bank and international monetary fund. this program has achieved full success in upgrading the performance of palestinian institutions set to a high- level than necessary for running a successful state. reports have confirmed the palestine has made achievements in this area, even more than many states have achieved if that is already enjoyed for

membership of the united nations while we stand deprived of this right. based on these achievements, in light of the increased suffering of our people under occupation, the stalemate in the prospect of the negotiations, we found no other way but to address the international community, to call the international community to open new prospects before the peace process by recognizing the state of palestine, along the borders of june 1967 and except the state of palestine as a full member of the united nations. we do not aim at to isolate israel or to de-legitimize israel. we want to gain legitimacy for our existence as a people that has the right to self-

determination, similar to other peoples in the world. our aim is to de legitimize occupation. our step is not an alternative to negotiations. it is a positive factor to prepare practical groundwork for a serious negotiation processes that would be capable of bringing forward the positive fruit. here we stand to underline our regiment according to a clear frame of reference that is in compliance with international legitimacy. hence our positive position, from the recent declaration made at that redefines or reaffirms v frame of reference

of the peace process, particularly the two-state the principle along the borders of 1967, and reaffirm the commitment of both parties. and in particular, to hold a settlement activities. israel's compliance will open the way for the resumption of the peace process. ladies and gentlemen, today, we have 128 member states in the united nations that recognize the state of palestine along with the borders of june 1967. we are proud to say that among these are 17 member states of the council of europe. and palestine has advanced diplomatic relations with another 24 states that are also members of the council of europe.

a number of these countries have heard, and especially those states members of the european union have affirmed that they are ready to recognize the state of palestine when the time is appropriate. we say to you that is all and well. with all honesty, we tell you that this is a suitable time, this is an appropriate time, and we appreciate the decision taken by the european parliament recently. we call for implementation and we highly appreciate the decision taken your august assembly last tuesday to invite the six members of the council of europe that are members of the security council to support the application of the state of palestine to join the united nations as a full member.

europe has invested huge amounts of effort and money in supporting the building of the institutions of the palestinian state. they have given to our people, a major form of support that will always be remembered with gratitude. recognition of the state of palestine in support for its bid for memberships at the united nations is the protection of those achievements that have been made so far due to the european effort and to the european investment among other efforts. it is also the position of europe and the leading role in driving the peace process forward. mr. president, today, we live the arab spring, and we witnessed the courage of the arab people as they express

their will to attain a social justice. the palestinians were always at the heart of the movement of the arab people that aspire to free them. the traditions of democracy and respect for pluralism and the freedom of opinion and expression, this was always a surprise for us. and a source of inspiration for our brothers from all arab countries. today we stand at the heart of the arab spring and announced that the hour of the palestinian spring is here. and the essence of the arab spring is the will of the people, to gain freedom. the essence of the palestinian spring is to get rid of the occupation and attain freedom and independence, achieve peace

and security, stability in all regions. the beginnings of our spring was shown to the whole world when hundreds of thousands went into the streets and villages palestine. expressing in one voice, the will to have palestine as state #194 in the united nations. this movement has maintained its peaceful and a civilized nature , though there were many attempts at provocation from the israeli side, and reaffirm our determination to maintain the peaceful nature of our movement.

we refuse of violence and we refuse terrorism in all its forms, including state terrorism and the terrorism of our settlers. we will not disappoint them. we will not let them drive us to extremism. our people will continue to the resistance against the settlement and a racist separation, offering a model of inspiration demonstrating the power of an arm less people facing bullets and detractors of destruction. now the celebration has to stand the test of credibility. will the celebration stop at the borders of palestine, or will it be able to go beyond the double standards?

will israel be allowed to continue to be a country above all laws and above all accountability? would it be allowed to continue to reject the resolutions of the security council and international criminal court, the violations of international law? our people wait to hear this -- to hear the response. some of this response is in your hands, ladies and gentlemen. elected representatives of europe. our people call on you to take up the responsibility. mr. president, ladies and a gentleman, within this ongoing effort for independence, we will make every effort possible to develop the building of our society and entrenching our democratic institution and harmonizing our domestic

situation. we shall seek to safeguard them. we are particularly proud of the fact that in recent years, we have been able to eradicate illiteracy almost completely in palestine. our people who contributed to building numerous countries in the world, people hold and venerate education, culture, creativity. we have had a major steps in expanding our education and infrastructure at all levels, reaching the point where we now have a 49 universities and institutes 45% of the total population, and we will continue with this work to provide educational opportunities for our sons and daughters.

and thanks to the appreciated support that we received from the friendly countries, in particular, the countries of europe. we have achieved a number of infrastructure projects with particular attention to developing health services and upgrading marginalized areas, and we have worked and will continue to work to strengthen the judiciary and the rule of law to maintain the security of the citizens. we have also made great strides in the field of women's participation in public life and decision making whether it is executive, legislative, or judicial. as well as local government institutions. along this line, we have signed

all forms of discrimination against women. this was a long time ago. our aspiration to achieve a quality between men and women. have also developed a system for monitoring accountability and administration. and financial reform of for establishing transparency and good government and our strive to comply with the highest international standards in this area. in building our national authority and the laying the foundation of our future states, we have chosen the parliamentary democratic system based on respect for pluralism and equality among all citizens. and we have opted for the rule of law, and for safeguarding freedoms and human rights. in spite of the difficulties and foreign intervention and

limitations set upon us by the occupation, we have been determined to continue our adherence to the choice of democracy. and to safeguard the freedom of organization and association and political work. and to support the institutions of civil society and for that freedom of opinion and the press. and all public and private freedoms. our success in the signing of the national agreement on the fourth of may constitutes a major step, and in this gives them that ruptured our national unity and brought upon us major injuries. the course of this agreement is to set up a provisional government composed of

independent national personalities and will prepare the ground for a elections presidential, parliamentarian, and local government. not beyond may 2012. this agreement is a positive achievement, and it is as well in necessity to safeguard palestinian democracy. mr. president, what brings us together, the palestinians and europe goes beyond geographic neighborhood relations along the mediterranean. it is more than just commercial exchange and human interaction and the product of the interaction between civilizations that goes back thousands of years.

what brings us together more over and above all that i mentioned before is the value, the joint values that are here, the values for freedom, equality, and justice. these values were borne by the people of the era for centuries, and these are the same values for which the people of the arab world and the palestinian people are aspiring to achieve. we look with admiration about what was achieved in europe. a pluralistic democracy, and we look upon you and took benefits from your experience in order to develop our democracy that we pride ourselves in. this historic city, strasbourg that was among the states of

europe in the past, but today, it is a seat of europe -- unified european institutions. i cannot but express my pride at the partnership agreement that was signed here yesterday with you by my brother, according to which the palestine national council, the parliament of the palestinian people and the homeland was given the status of partner for democracy at your parliamentary assembly. we are particularly proud to come as palestine following a moral code that enjoyed the status. this will have a positive

impact on consolidating the relations of friendship and cooperation between our people and encouraging democratic change. i would like to express the gratitude of the palestinian people for the generous support received from the countries of europe to assist with the economy and institutions. we hope, i repeat, we hope that this will strengthen further a political role of europe in the peace process in the region. mr. president, ladies and a gentleman, the resolution of the united nations announced the establishment of two states.

one mistake was israel, the other one has not seen the light of day, that is palestine. we have asked for the state to see the light of day. this is our right to guaranteed by international law. this is not an alternative to negotiations. they are indispensable to arrive at solutions over borders, security, refugees, water, supplement, jerusalem, and the release of all prisoners in addition to putting an end to the conflict in accordance to the stipulations of the arab peace initiative may live in an environment of peace that would all arabs and all muslims. we want to live as other people live. freedom, and dignity.

we do not aim to isolate anyone. we want to protect both people. the palestinian and israeli people, from settlements that destroys the future of both people. israeli politicians have to choose between settlement and peace, we have chosen piece. you have supported the arab spring that calls for democracy and freedom. here comes the palestinian spring to also demand freedom and an end to occupation. we deserve your support. we deserve your support. we trust you. not abandon us and you will not let us down. we count on you.

peace be upon you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. for the most interesting and comprehensive address members of the assembly have questions have -- questions to put to you. questions must be limited to 30 seconds, and they will be asking questions and not making speeches.

party european people's joins the president and extending to you a great welcome to this house of democracy. the european people's party strongly believes that without a fair, just, and principal solution to the palestinian issue, there can be no permanent peace in the middle east. but at the same time, we believe that such a solution would greatly be facilitated if in the whole of palestine, there is full respect of the rule of law and human rights. what further steps are you planning? including the abolition of the death penalty. >> mr. president, you have the

floor. >> the most important is that we need, to go back to the negotiation table based on the international legitimacy and debate on the outcome of the question. this is the basis of negotiations between us. as for the rest of your question, with regard to the abolition of the death penalty, this issue is the top priority of the legislative council. five years ago, we did not ratify a single sentence of death penalty. thank you. >> before i give the floor to the question, i would ask our

guests to remain silent according to the rules. the next question is on behalf of the professional democracy. >> president, he or the representative of a new partner for democracy, and we do hope that you would be followed by other countries of around the mediterranean. president, can you confirm that the two-state solution that we all want will be, in fact, to democratic states or the citizens of one would be welcomed in the other territory and where men and women will have the quality in order to achieve a democracy? that will preserve of human rights?

>> we told you that we have signed the convention and apply it and all our institutions at the legislative council, the ministries, the judiciary, at a local government. as for the establishment of two states, but to state that live alongside each other in peace and stability, we offered this to israel. if we end the conflict, there will be 57 states that recognize israel, and that is according to the arab peace initiative for peace. you, mr. president. the next question -- >> president, you are welcome to this house of democracy. i have two questions.

you stated that you're counting on us. what practical steps may we take to be able to assist you? are you optimistic as regards the future of the palestinian people and the people of israel? >> on the second question, we are always optimistic about the future of the palestinian people and the israeli people to live alongside each other, not only alone, but with all peoples of the d region extending all the way to indonesia. as for the first question. as i made clear in my speech, there are six states, members of this council that are also members of the un security

council. live like to ask them to agree to vote with us. this is a very important request because we would be able to overcome any obstacles at the security council. this is one step among many other steps. we're not talking with aid and assistance. we thank you for that. we need your political support. you have taken a decision, a recommendation for these six states to recognize palestine. your member states that the un security council. the european states said they will do so, they will recognize the palestinian state at the appropriate time. there is no time more appropriate than this moment. on

of european them across -- democracy groups. >> congratulations for being granted that the partners for democracy status by the parliamentary assembly of the council of europe. i question is, what you think of the future of relations with hamas. some hamas representatives have expressed reservations about recognition in the united nations. do the groups except the policies put into action in the united nations by the palestinian nation? >> as to the future of our relationships with the council, they should evolve and we should benefit and learn from you to be able to upgrade our democracy development in light of your

rich experience. this is why i said in the context of the arab spring, many will have the opportunity to join you as well. as forhamas, -- as for hamas, they have not given an official position, and there are those that are against it and those that are for it. we heard the speech made by the head of the political bureau, he said that he supports and the speech made by me at the united nations. he raised the issue of consultation. consultation is an important issue, but if you support the principle and you are not consulted, when you ask for consultations in the future. >> the next question is by mr. cox of the european unified

group. >> this week we welcome the palestinian national council as a partner for democracy with this assembly. i congratulate you on that. this assembly also sends a clear signal to the european government member states of the security council to support your bid for full membership. what could disassembly as well as the european parliament do also to convince the government and the parliament of israel it is not a danger, but a chance for israel to accept your bid for statehood and to change in that way. what can we do to convince our israeli friends to support your proposal? >> it is very important to keep in communications, and we keep communications with israelis

whether it is official or others to clarify that there is no contradiction between our going to the united nations and peace. or between our bid and negotiations. they also have to be aware that their future in this environment is very important for them to have peace, to achieve peace. if you help clarify these issues to them, i believe they will listen to you as friends of both parties. >> the next question is from france. the offer we are delighted to welcome you here today, and i like to ask you some questions. some of your statements in the united nations are implying that the future of the palestinian state would not include any jews on its territory. exclusion for religious regions runs council -- counter the council of europe.

you have entered in talks with hamas. are you seeking recognition of renunciation of violence and relief of the hostage as been held for six years? >> as to the soldier, they have made efforts and continue to make efforts in addition to the efforts made by our egyptian brothers and. we don't want any person to be incarcerated. we want him to go back to his family as we ask for the return of 6000 palestinian prisoners to their families as well. it is not an opposition, it is palestinian opposition at present. when it becomes partners to

government, it will be required to abide by international legitimacy. a settler don't want saarland, we did not say anything about that. >> the next question is from armenia. >> everybody knows -- what will the army in tourism? thank you. -- armenian tourism? thank you. >> east jerusalem as occupied territory since the year 1967. similar to the occupied territories, and therefore, it is the capital of the state of

palestine. east jerusalem as capital of the state of palestine and western jerusalem is the capital of the state of israel and jerusalem will be open before these monotheistic religions. this is not an agreement, understanding. it was the subject of our understanding, what does arabic remain for the arabs? all religions, and they can practice their worship there. >> the next question -- >> i have listened very carefully to what you have said. i would like you to come back, for the past five years, this young man is imprisoned. not even the red cross had the opportunity to see him or to get news of him to his family.

i think that today, a direct commitment on your part in favor would be greatly appreciated. >> the soldier, we would -- we don't like to restrict the freedom of anyone. there were 8010 thousand before. from the first day, and he was taken prisoner, he strove to release and return him to his family as an act of humanitarianism. it is not fair to release anyone -- to incarcerate any person. there are efforts to have that package deal between hamas and

isreal to return the release of prisoners. we support such an agreement. >> the next question is from romania. >> i would also like to welcome you to our assembly and congratulate you on the occasion relating to the decision that occurred two days ago. while making a brief reference to the middle east which includes a very valuable presence, i would like to put the question on a different item about the future and the younger generation. what are they taking with the younger generation in order to intensify peaceful coexistence

between the states of israel. >> the young generation has expressed its opposition on the fifteenth of march when it stood up in unison. speaking of the palestinian youth that stood up in west bank demanding the end of internal schisms and the end of occupation, there are zero ways of communications going on among palestinian, israeli, and european used to carry out demonstrations against the settlements and the racist separation wall that israel was building. we count on the generation of young people, these are people that work for peace. and i told you, we build a culture of peace.

>> of the next question is from hungary. >> in the name of freedom and the people of hungary, we would never abandon you in your freedom fighting. -- in't be realized absolutely agree with you. when israel was adopted from the un members, israel is a peace- loving states and is able to carry out of the obligations of the u.s.. do you think it has happened? >> israel is supposed to be a peace-loving stake. it with resolution 181, it

established to states. israel and palestine. over the passage of 63 years, the state of palestine should of been established along side the state of israel, but this was obstructed for many reasons. we are extending our hand to live with them, the context of these states. do they really believe in peace? do they want peace? the answer is in their hands. let them accept our extended hand. and reached understandings of what ever will take place from adjustments, and let us agree on the issues that were discussed and let the process become concluded. yes, we recognize the state of israel. but this is what israel has to understand for the first time. 57 states agree to establish

diplomatic relations with the state of israel. and the importance of this initiative is that that is what is launched by the kingdom of saudi arabia. it was adopted following that by arab and islamic states. this is an historic opportunity that they should not mess. -- should not miss. >> from norway, ask the next question. >> palestine is both geographically and politically divided. palestinian unification is very important and must happen, but at the same time, the international society and most of norway welcomed and supported the such unification and the government. can you please comment on the unification process?

>> the coup de tat was -- however, i would like to draw your attention from the agreement. we called it a safe passage. we agreed that it would be built to unify geographically, part of the occupied territories. if the schism and, unity will be resumed and we hope that we will be able to build a safe passage and there will be a palestinian state that will be identified geographically and politically on the human level. >> thank you very much.

with the decision the day before yesterday, you had an important tool with the freedom and independence of your country. above all, we have obligations and duties with regard to human rights. to ensure that those rights are upheld in article 12, there are 18 are you going to study that and follow it closely to give us answers? >> i can put it in english if you wish. >> a technical problem, nothing to do with interpreters.

>> can you repeat the question please? >> i did not get any signal from the interpreter so you better make it in english. >> with our decision of the third of october, [unintelligible] inouye struggle to acquire your state of freedom and independence. we also have committed to apply some commitments which are a rising from this paper that you already signed. there are 18 clauses which have to be upheld by your presidency. can you tell us more about this?

>> certainly, we did not come here to say we accept this and reject that. we are ready to take on all the commitments here in this council to accept and to implement. on this occasion, we express our gratitude to you for accepting us as partners, but you'll find that we are among the countries of the world's most committed to human rights, pluralism, and democracy. >> mr. president, dear colleagues, we now conclude the questions to mr. abbas. may i thank you, mr. president, most warmly, for your communication and for the answers you have given to the

questions. thank you so much. [applause] >> we will hold the next public meeting at 3:00 p.m. this afternoon. this meeting is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> watched more video of the candidates, see what political reporters are saying, and track the latest campaign contributions of c-span is website for campaign 2012. easy to use, and helps you navigate the political landscape with campaign bios, plus links to c-span media partners in the early primary and caucus states. >> the house today blocked resolution by congressman jesse jackson that would have condemned texas governor rick perry is hunting cabin that -- his name contained a racial slur. >> whereas on october 2, 2011, the washington post reported story called rick perry and a

word set on stone. the people were morally outraged. whereas governor rick perry has described a childhood in pasco county and paid creek texas s centered on boy scouts, school, and church, where as texas governor rick perry is from west texas and was originally a southern democrat often known as a dixiecrat. he is currently leading republican presidential candidate. whereas rectors who once grazed cattle on the 1,700 acre parcel in brought martin county on the clear fork of the brazos river, near where governor perry was raised in paid creek texas, it has become a hunting brownell was called by the name

"niggerhead"even though there is no definitive account of when the brought first appeared on the rot. whereas the term is morally offensive, he holds governor perry in the highest esteem, but said that of this rock at the camp, a kind of offended me, truthfully. whereas haskell county judge david davis, sitting in his courtroom and looking at a window there said the word "was like those vertical blinds, it's just what it was called. there was no significance other than a hunting deal." whereas the name of this particular parcel did not change for years and for many remained

the same after it became associated with rick perry, first as a private citizen, then as a state official, and finally as texas governor. whereas, some local residents still call it by the morrallly repugnant named, nigger head. whereas recently as this summer a slab like rock flying flat portions of the name still visible beneath white paint remained by the gate to the camp. whereas asked last week about the name, governor perry said on the rock is an offensive name that has no place in the modern world. implying it may have been ok and had an appropriate place in that community when he was growing up. whereas, mary lou has lived in haskill county, texas, and recalls the racism she feels in 1950's and 1960's in west texas when being called an offensive name like white screeting blacks with, quote, morning, nigger, was like a broken record. whereas throck morton county,

near haskill county, was for years considered a no-go zone by african-americans because of old stories told by locals of african-american men lynched there. whereas they began observing martin luther king jr.'s day, birthday celebration, just two years ago according to a county commissioner in haskill county. whereas governor perry grew up in a segregated area -- era whose history has defined and complicated the careers of many southern politicians. whereas governor perry has spoken often about how his upbringing in his sparsely populated farming community influenced his conservatism. whereas, governor perry says he mentioned the offensive word on the rock to his parents shortly after they signed a lease and he had visited the property, and they rather immediately painted over the word during the next july 4 holiday. but seven people interviewed by "the washington post" said they still saw the word on the rock

at various points during the years that the perry family was associated with the property through his family, partners, or signature on the lease. whereas another local resident who visited the property with governor perry and the legislators he brought there to go hunting recalled seeing the rock and the name clearly visible. whereas, how, , when weather governor perry dealt with it when he was using the property isn't clear and as a dimension to the emerging biographer of governor perry who quickly moved in the top-tear of republican presidential candidates when he entered the race in august. whereas, herman cane is the only republican presidential candidate to criticize governor rick perry for being insensitive when the word was not immediately condemned, but we would remind herman cain, it is insensitive and it is also offensive. now therefore it be resolved, resolved that the house of representatives call on governor rick perry to apologize for not immediately doing away with the

rock that contained the word nigger head, at the entrance of a ranch he was leasing on and which he was taking friends, colleagues, and supporters to hunt. it calls on governor rick perry's presidential rivals who have not yet made strong statements of outrage over the rock that contained the word to do so. it calls upon governor rick perry to condemn the use of this word as being totally offensive and inappropriate at any time and at any place in united states history. and lastly, it calls upon governor rick perry to list the names of all lawmakers, friends, and financial supporters he took with him on his hunting trips to nigger head. the speaker pro tempore: under rule 9 the resolution offered from the floor by a member other than the majority leader or minority leader is as a question of privileges of the house has immediate precedence only at a time designated by the chair within two legislative days after the resolution is properly

noticed. pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentleman from illinois will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. that determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution. >> president obama held a news conference today and talked about his jobs plan and defended the government's loan to a solar panel benefactor that filed for bankruptcy. that is coming up next on c- span. after that we will get house speaker john boehner's take on the president's jobs plan. then the discussion with vice- president joe biden, and later, former vice president dick cheney. that is part of a forum hosted by the atlantic and aspen institute. >> conservative leaders and a number of presidential candidates will attend the family research council's voter

summit tomorrow morning. we will hear from house speaker john boehner and rick santorum. on c-span2, the part of state will hold a public meeting on the proposed keystone xl pipeline project. the 1700-mile prospect of the project would run from alberta, canada, to the gulf coast. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> by the new books for your fall reading list this weekend on "book tv." president james garfield is near death, mortally wounded two months earlier by a crazed gunman. candice miller on the political intrigue and the destiny of the republic. susan herman blames the patriot act and other anti-terrorism laws for damaging the lives and liberties of american citizens. she is interviewed by the former bush and assistant

attorney general. a concentration camp survivor has a message for today's youth. life and liberty are worth fighting for. find the schedule this and every week in online that booktv.org. >> at his news conference, president obama -- president obama urged congress to support his jobs bill. other topics included china's currency, relations with pakistan, and you are a's debt. from the east room of the white house, this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. i will take your questions in a second. i want to say a few words about the economy. next week, the senate will vote on the american jobs act. by now, i have made my view is

well known. some of you are keeping a tally about how many times i have talked about the american jobs act. the reason i keep going around the country talking about this is because people really need help right now. our economy needs a jolt right now. this is not a game. this is not the time for the usual political gridlock. the problems that europe is having could have an impact on our economy at a time when it is fragile. there could be another downturn if the situation in europe gets worse. it will boost economic growth and put people to work. this is not just my belief. this is what independent economists have said. not just politicians. independent experts that do this for a living have said that this jobs bill will have a significant effect on our

economy and on middle-class families all across america. what these independents have also said that if we do not act, the opposite will be true. there will be fewer jobs. there will be weaker growth. as we look towards next week, any senator that is thinking about voting against this jobs bill, when it comes up for a vote, they need to explain exactly why they would oppose something that we know would improve our economic situation at such an urgent time for our families and businesses. congressional republicans say that one of the most important things we can do is cut taxes. then they should love this plan. the jobs bill would cut taxes for virtually every worker and small business in america. if you are a small business owners that hire somebody or

raises wages, you would get a tax cut. right now, there is a small business that does high-tech manufacturing. they have been expanding for the last two years. they have been thinking about hiring more. hundreds of thousands of teachers and firefighters and police officers have been laid off because of state budget cuts. this jobs bill has funding to put a lot of those men and women back to work. it has funding to prevent a lot more from losing their jobs. i had a chance to meet a young man named robert. he is an english teacher in boston. he came to the white house a few weeks ago. he has two decades of teaching experience, he has a master's degree, he has an outstanding track record of having his students make huge gains in reading and writing.

in the last year, he has received three pink slips because of budget cuts. why would we not want to pass a bill that would put somebody like robert back in the classroom teaching our kids. some of you talked about a bridge in kentucky that has been classified as obsolete. that is a fancy way of saying it is old and breaking down. we have heard about bridges in both states that are falling apart. that is true all over the country. in maine, there is a bridge that is in such bad shape that pieces of it were falling off the other day. we have millions of construction workers that could be busy rebuilding roads, rebuilding bridges, rebuilding schools. this gives them a chance to get back to work rebuilding america. why would you vote against that?

the proposals in this bill are not just random investments. they are steps that we have to take if we want to build an economy that lasts. we want to be able to compete with other countries for jobs to restore a sense of security to middle-class families. to do that, we must have the most educated workers. we have to support innovative small businesses. we have to support innovative manufacturers. what is true is that we also have to rein in our deficits and the within our means. that is why this jobs bill is fully paid for. i asked the millionaires and billionaires to pay their share. some see this as class warfare. i see a step -- see this as a simple choice. we can fight to protect tax cuts for folks that do not need them. or we could cut taxes took from virtually every small business

in america. we have a responsibility for those sending us here. i hope that every senator thinks long and hard about what is at stake next week. with that, i will take your questions. i will start with the associated press. >> i would like to ask you about two economic matters. do you agree that the economic

bill is close to a faltering? they said that they want results. what did not be productive to work with republicans on a plan that you know will pass congress instead of going around the country eighth talking about your bill and calling on republicans by name? >> there is no doubt that the growth of the economy has slowed. the combination of the japanese tsunami, the arabs bring, -- arab spring, as consumers and businesses service. we did not help in washington with the debt ceiling debate that took place. that is unprecedented in terms

of how we dealt with our responsibilities in washington. there is no doubt that the economy is weaker now than it was at the beginning of the year. every independent economist who has look at -- looked at this question carefully believes that for us to make sure that we are taking out an insurance policy against a possible double-dip recession, it is important for us to boost consumer confidence, put money in their pockets, cutting taxes where we can for small businesses, and it makes sense to put people back to work, doing the work that needs to be done. that is exactly what this job bill does. with respect to working with congress, it is fair to say that i have gone out of my way in every instance, sometimes at my own political peril, sometimes with the frustration of democrats, to find common

ground with republicans to move this country forward. in every instance, whether it was during the lame-duck session, when we were able to get the agreement, to make sure that payroll tax was caught and unemployment was extended, to my constant efforts during the debt ceiling to try to get the grand bargain. in which we have a balanced approach to bringing down our deficit and debt in a way that would not hurt our recovery. each time, what we have seen games playing, a preference to try to score political points rather than get something done. that has been true, not just over the last six months, but over the last 2.5 years. our doors are open. what i have done over the last several weeks is take the case

to the american people said that they understand what is at stake. it is up to all of these senators and all of the members of the house to explain to their constituencies why they would be opposed to common sense ideas that have historically been supported by democrats and republicans in the past. why would you be opposed to tax cuts for small businesses and tax cuts for american workers? my understanding is that for the last decade they have been saying that we need to lower taxes for folks. why would we not want to do that for this jobs bill? historically, republicans have not been opposed to rebuilding roads and bridges. why would they be opposed now? the biggest problem in terms of

unemployment has not been in the private sector. it has bill layoffs of teachers and cops and firefighters. we have created over 2 million jobs in the private sector. in the public sector, we keep seeing these layoffs having an adverse affect on economies in states all across the country. why would we not want to make sure that those teachers are in the classroom teaching our kids? my expectation and hope is that everybody will vote for this jobs bill because it reflects those ideas that have been traditionally supported by democrats and republicans. if it turns out that there are republicans opposed to this bill, they need to explain to me and their constituencies, why they were opposed to what they would do.

we know that this jobs bill based on independent analysis could grow the economy almost an additional 2%. that could mean an additional 1.9 million jobs. do they have a plan that would have a similar impact? if they do, i would be happy to hear it. i have not heard them offer alternatives that would have the same kind of impact. that is what we need right now. a lot of the problems that this economy is facing our problems that predate the financial crisis. middle-class families seeing their wages and income flat. despite rising costs for everything from health care to a college education. folks have been struggling for over a decade now.

and at a time when so many people are having such a hard time, we have to have an approach, we have to take action that is big enough to meet the moment. what i have heard from republicans is, well, you are agreeing to do these statements. i am in favor of these statements and they are passing, but that is not going to do enough to deal with the huge problems we have right now with respect to unemployment. i am thrilled we were able to get republicans and democrats to work together. that is a long-term issue for our economic competitiveness. it is not putting americans to work right now. the bottom line is this. if next week the senators have additional ideas that will put people back to work right now and meet the challenges of the

current economy, we are happy to consider them. every idea we put forward, or the ones that -- are the ones that have been traditionally supported by democrats and republicans alike. i believe it is very hard to argue against them. if mr. mcconnell chooses to vote against it or if members of his caucus vote against it, i promise you, we are going to keep on going, and we will put forth -- maybe piece by piece -- each component. and each time they are going to have to explain why they would be opposed to putting teachers back in the classroom or rebuilding our schools or giving tax breaks to middle- class folks or tax cuts to small businesses. >> [unintelligible] >> i think if we do not take action, we could end up with more significant problems than

we have right now. some of it is simple math. the payroll tax we just passed will be set to expire. the jobs plan -- if that is not extended, and that is over $1,000 out of the pockets of the american family at a time when they're dealing a severe pinch, that means they're going to be spending less. that is going to have an adverse effects on the economy. thank you, mr. president. -- >> thank you, mr. president. we assume you are ok with the change on the surtax, the 5.6% surtax. >> we have always said we would

be open to a variety of ways to pay for it. we've put forward what we thought was a solid approach to paying for the jobs bill itself. keep in mind though, not only do we have to pay for the jobs bill, but we have to spend more to reduce the debt and the deficit. the approach that the senate is taking, i am comfortable with in order to deal with the jobs bill. we still have to reform the tax code to make sure we are closing loopholes, closing special interest tax breaks, making sure that the buffett rule -- which is millionaires and billionaires are not paying a lower tax rate than ordinary families. so, there's going to be more work to do to make the tax system fair and just and promote growth, but in terms of the immediate reaction, this is the approach they are taking. >> you asked for a members of the public to approach members

of congress and switchboards got jammed. you are not hearing about phones being jammed. one member of congress told me, there is disillusionment he is concerned about with the public that maybe they just do not believe anything can get done anyway. are you worried about your own powers of persuasion? >> what we have seen is the american people are looking at the specific provisions of the jobs bill. the american people are frustrated. we do not get a sense -- they do not get a sense that the sign

in this town are looking out for the reasons -- for their interest. people are feeling cynical and frustrated about the prospects of action in this city -- absolutely. you know, i can go out there and make speeches, but until they actually see action, some of that cynicism is going to be there. in the debt ceiling debate -- you know, a majority, may be higher than 70% agreed with the proposal that i talked about. what the american people saw was congress did not care. not only what i thought, but what the american people thought. they had their own agenda.

that cynicism is not going to be reduced until congress actually proves their cynicism on. by doing something that will actually help the american people. this is a great opportunity to do it. this is a great opportunity to do it. keep in mind -- if the american jobs bill passes, we are still going to have challenges. we're still going to have to make sure we have the best education system in the world, because that is going to be critical for creating good, solid middle-class jobs. we are still going to have to create research and science and make sure we do even more on infrastructure. the american jobs does not cover all the roads and bridges infrastructure around the country. it is not as if that is going to solve all our problems, but

it is an important start that we know would end up growing the economy and putting hundreds of thousands, millions of people back to work at a time when they needed the most. and is paid for. the one persuasive argument republicans have made previously against a bill like that is we cannot afford it. well, we can afford it if we are willing to ask people like me to do a little bit more on taxes. we can afford it. without affecting our deficit. our proposal is paid for. so, that cannot be the excuse. so, yes.>> obviously, i have sen television. i think it expresses the frustrations of the american people.

that we had the biggest financial crisis since the great depression. huge collateral damage all across the country, all across main street. and yet, you're still seeing some of these same folks who were responsible trying to fight efforts to crack down on abusive practices that got us into this problem in the first place. so, yes, i think folks are frustrated and the protesters are giving voice to a broad based frustration about how our financial system works. keep in mind i have said before and i will continue to repeat we have to have a strong, effective financial sector in order to grow. i used a lot of political

capital, and i had things and bruises to prove it, in order to prevent the financial meltdown. and that was the right thing to do. because i've seen a financial collapse, the damage to the american economy would have been even worse. for us to have a healthy financial system, that requires that banks and other financial institutions to compete, but not on the basis up hidden fees, deceptive practices, or derivative cocktails that no one understands that expose the entire economy to an enormous risks. it was designed to make sure we did not have the necessity of taxpayer bailouts. we said we would be able to control these situations.

we can isolate them, quarantine them. let them fail. it says that we're going to have a consumer watchdog on the job all the time who is going to make sure dealing with customers -- we're dealing with customers on a fair way. we will have to make sure that we will be straight with people on what they're purchasing. what we have seen over the last year is not only is there the financial sector with the republican party in congress fighting every and to the way, but now you have these same folks suggesting we should roll back all this reform and go back to the way it was before the crisis. today, my understanding is we

have a hearing on richard cordray, who is my nominee to head up the consumer financial protection bureau. he would be the cheap consumer watchdog for financial products. this is a guy who is well regarded in his home state of ohio. he has been the treasurer of ohio, the treasurer general of ohio. republicans in ohio say he is a serious person who looks after consumers. he has a good reputation. republicans are poised not to confirm him, not because of anything he has done, but because it would roll back the entire notion of having a consumer watchdog. you of presidential candidates whose main economic policy proposal is wanting to get rid of the financial reforms that are designed to prevent the abuses that got us into this

mess in the first place. it will be frustrating for the american people until they get the sense that everybody is playing by the same set of rules, and you are rewarded for responsibility and doing the right thing as opposed to gaming the system. i am going to be planning every inch of the way here in washington to make sure we have a consumer watchdog that is preventing abuses by the financial sector. i will be hugely supportive of banks and financial institutions to are doing the right thing by their customers. we need them to be lending. we need them to help to what traditionally banks and financial services are supposed to be doing, which is providing businesses and families resources to make productive

investments that will actually build the economy. the american people -- until the american people see that happening, yes, they're going to express frustration about what they see as two sets of rules. >> [inaudible] >> what i think is that the american people understand that not everybody has been following the rules. wall street is an example of that. folks who were working hard every single day, getting up, going to the job, loyal to the company, but that used to be the essence of the american dream. bedside you got ahead, the old- fashioned way. these days, a lot of people who were not doing the right thing

are not rewarded. that is going to express itself in 2012 and beyond until people feel like once again you're getting back to some old- fashioned american values, which, if you are a banker, then you're making your money by making prudent loans to businesses and individuals to build plants and equipment and hire workers that are creating goods and products that are building the economy and benefiting everybody. jay tapper? >> thank you, mr. president. one of the reasons why so many people of the occupied wall street protests are so angry is because, as you say, so many people on wall street did not follow the rules. but your administration has never really been aggressive in prosecuting -- in fact, i cannot think any wall street executive has gone to jail as a result of their malfeasance.

i wonder if you can comment on that? i am wondering if how this controversy is playing out gives you any pause on your administration? many democrats were concerned about the department of energy, many e-mails going on with the attorney general. are you worried at all halyard ministration as running backs >> first on the issue of -- are you worried at all about how your administration is running backs >> first on the issue of protests, the collapse of lehmans, the whole subprime and the fiasco, a lot of the stuff was not necessarily illegal or

inappropriate or reckless. that is exactly why we needed to pass dodd-frank. the financial sector is very creative. they're always looking for ways to make money. if there are loopholes and rules that can be bent and arbitrage to be had, they will bend them. i am not going to comment on particular prosecution's. that is not my job. that is the attorney general's job. a lot of practices that should not have been allowed necessarily against the law, but they had a huge destructive impact. that is why it was important to put in place financial rules

that protect the american people from reckless decision making. with respect to fast and furious and solyndra, i have been very clear. i have complete confidence in attorney general holder in how he handles his office. he has been very aggressive in going after cash transactions in these cartels in mexico. we have a lot of cooperation with mexico on this front. he was not aware of what was happening with fast and furious. both he and i would have been very unhappy if somebody had suggested guns were allowed that could have been prevented by the united states of america. we've assigned the inspector general to look into how exactly this has happened.

i have complete confidence in him and the process to figure out who in fact was responsible for that decision and how it got made. solyndra, this is a loan guarantee program that predates me, that historically has had support from democrats and republicans as well. at the idea is pretty straightforward. if we are going to be able to compete in the 21st century, then we have got to dominate cutting edge technologies. we have to dominate cutting edge manufacturers. clean energy as part of that package of the technology of the future that has to be -- at least here in united states. now, the loan program is designed to meet that particular need in the

marketplace, which is a lot of these small start-ups, they can get individual investors, they can get several million dollars to get a company going. but it is very hard for them to scale up. particularly with cutting edge technologies. is hard for them to find private investors. part of what is happening is china and europe are putting enormous subsidies into these companies and giving them incentives to move offshore, even if the technology is developed in the united states. they go to china because the chinese government says, we're going to up to get started, we're going to help you scale up, we will give you loans. we will do what ever it takes for you to get started here. that is part of the reason why technologies are developed here.

we are the leader in solar energy, wind energy. i want to close that gap and say, let's see if we can help these folks locate jobs in united states. knew from the start with the loan guarantee program -- we knew from the start that the loan guarantee program would involve some risk. if it was a risk free proposition, then we would not have to worry about. the old portfolio has allowed companies to start manufacturing here in united states. in has helped create jobs -- it has helped create jobs. the process by which this decision was made was straightforward, and of course there will be debates internally when you're dealing with something as complicated as this. but i have confidence that the decisions were made based on

what would be good for the american economy and american people and putting people back to work. and by the way, one last point. and her there was a republican member of congress who is engaged in oversight, and despite the fact that they all passed support of this loan guarantee program, he concluded, you know, we cannot compete against china when it comes to solar energy. you know what? i do not buy that. i am not going to surrender to other countries a technological leap that could determine whether we build a strong middle class are not. so, we are going to have to keep on pushing hard to make sure that manufacturing is located here and new technologies are developed, and there'll be times it does not work out.

in not going to given to the competition when they are heavily subsidizing all of these industries. >> [inaudible] a lot of it is legal, but a lot of it is not. >> the president cannot go around saying "prosecute somebody." as a general principle, if someone is engaged in fraudulent actions, the need to be prosecuted. there are laws on the books. they need to be prosecuted. that is the attorney general's job. i know attorney general holder, u.s. attorneys all across the country, they take that job very seriously. >> thank you, mr. president. you just spoke about the need

for banks to start lending. you talked about how creative the can be. yet earlier in the week, he said "banks do not have an inherent right to get, you know, some amount of profit." do you think that your government has a right to say how much profits american companies can make? >> i absolutely do not think that. i was trying to make a broader point. which is that people of been using financial regulation as an excuse to charge consumers more. basically the argument they have made is, you know what? this hidden feet was prohibited, and so we will find another eight to make up for it. -- another fee to make up for. they have that right, but it is not a good process. it is not necessarily fair to

consumers. my main goal is to make sure we have a consumer watchdog in place who is letting consumers now what their practices are, making sure transactions are transparent, making sure that banks have to compete for customers based on the quality of their service. the frustrating thing we have right now is we have folks over in congress, republicans, who say they see their role as eliminating any prohibitions on any regulations for financial companies. i think that is part of the frustration the american people feel. they have gone through a period of rate hikes they did not know about, fine print they did not understand.

that is true for credit cards, mortgages. contributed to overall weakness in the economy. and yes, i think is entirely appropriate for the government to have some oversight role to make sure consumers are protected. so, banks and any business in america can process their business anyway they want. as long as there is accountability and consumers understand what they are getting and there are going to be instances where a policy is made that, you know what? there are certain factors were that is unfair. that is the market's always operate. >> [unintelligible] >> i think what the consumer finance protection bureau can do is make sure that consumers

understand exactly what they were getting, exactly what was happening. i think that congress can make determinations with respect to whether or not a certain practice was there or not. dated -- david nakamura. >> thank you, mr. president. just following up on solyndra. giving out $80 billion of guaranteed loans and promising to save jobs in green energy and clean energy. direct and reports that only 3500 new jobs have been created in that industry. why has that industry been so slow to respond to the investment your administration has provided, and what you see going forward for how we move on? >> i think what has been true historic plea is that -- historic plea is that

businesses that rely on new technologies, oftentimes is going to take a while before they take off. there's a lot of up-front investment to be made in research and capital and so forth. barriers for companies trying to break in. keep in mind, clean energy companies are competing against traditional energy companies. and traditional energy is still cheaper. in a lot of ways. the problem is, it is running out. is polluting. and we know demand is going to keep on increasing. if we don't get on top of technologies now, we will be facing 20 years from now, china

and india having a billion new drivers on the road. the trend lines in terms of oil prices, cold, are going up, and the impact on the planet is increasing. we will not be able to start when all heck is breaking loose and say we better find some new energy sources. in the meantime, we have to make these investments, but that makes it more difficult for a lot of these companies to succeed. what is also a problem is that other countries are subsidizing these industries much more aggressively than we are. hundreds of billions of dollars the chinese government is pouring into the clean energy sector, partly because they are projecting what is going to happen 10 or 20 years from now. i have confidence in american businesses, american technology, scientists, an entrepreneur is

being able to win that competition. we are not going to be duplicating the kind of system they have in china, where they are basically state run banks giving money to state run companies and ignoring losses and ignoring bad management, but there is a role to play for us to make sure that these companies can at least have a fighting shocked. does mean there will be some that are not successful, and it will be an uphill climb for some. obviously it is very difficult for all companies right now to succeed when the economy is as soft and weak as it is. >> [unintelligible]

>> i will tell you that even for those projects under this loan guarantee program that have ended up being successful, there are those in the marketplace who have been doubtful. there is always going to be a debate about whether this particular approach to this particular technology is going to be successful or not. all i can say is the department of energy made these decisions based on their best judgment about what would make sense. the nature of these programs are going to be ones in which for every success, there may be one that does not work out as well. but that is exactly what the loan guarantee program was designed by congress to do, to take bets on these areas where we need to make sure we are maintaining our lead. maintaining our lead.