[general rooom noise]

our manufacturing base is only 10 percent. it is 25 percent signed when i was born. [general room noise] we have a tax policy that is

broken. we have a regulatory notronment where they're able to do with the want to do. to go look at germany. look at the quality of products they are making. >> we are smart enough to get our tax policy right and regulatory regime right. there will be political questions beyond that in terms of overall stability. and the manufacturing dollars will go for alternatives. >> you think we can do regulate ourselves enough to be able to compete? >> we have no choice. we get -- we need to get to the

point where we can build a manufacturing plant here. >> it it brings us jobs and economic expansion, which pays for schools, teachers for their work, allows our nation to be able to publish things, that is what i did as governor. and our economy was ok but not number-one. the business that came in and on top nor -- entrepreneurial activity was such that we were able to -- >> what you do about the financial community and how they are taxed? >> there is so is appropriate regulation. you have to find a balance. thank you. [general room noise]

>> former gov. huntsman at wrapping up in new hampshire. the first day on the five day to wour of the state. is also inaughlbachmann

new hampshire. also, rick santorum is campaigning in new hampshire. a reminder that this afternoon we will return live to new hampshire. former massachusetts governor, it romney, will hold a town hall meeting in new hampshire. judd gregg has said he will endorse romney for president today. he will be with the canada and his wife in appearances throughout the state. live coverage will get under way at 5:30 eastern 3 here on c- span. the major republican candidates will be in new hampshire tomorrow for a debate on the economy.

the economy. c-span will have live coverage of the debate. it is part of our road to the white house coverage. >> last monday, light squared head founder spoke about his company's efforts to build a high-speed wireless network. >> for the first time americans will have access to connectivity even through natural disasters and other things happening. >> tonight, questions on light squared goals and possible dps interfereninterference. at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span 2. >> tonight, a look at the proposed 1,700 mile pipeline that would carry crude oil from alberta, canada, through illinois, okla., and on to the gulf coast. >> mother earth is crying. our property tells us when mother earth cries, we stand up and fight for her or she will

die and we will die with her. i asked everyone to remember this. rise up with mother earth. rise up and say no to the pipeline. no to death. >> this is not a regional impact. it is a national impact if approval were to come through, it would help stimulate economic recovery. it will put us back on our feet, and many here today focused on job creation -- many will have opportunity to have some of the best paying jobs here in the united states. >> we will show the entire public hearing in death discussion hosted by the state department and the discussion are presenting different views of starting tonight at 8:00 30 eastern on cspan 2.

>> michele bachmann of the conference this weekend in new hampshire. she talked about range of issues including government debt and government -- governments entitlement programs. this is about one hour 20 minutes.

>> hi, guys. thanks for coming out today. [applause] oh, good to see you. good to see you. ♪ i am so glad that you are here. they are one of my best customers. and >> awesome. >> a big round of applause, your congress woman michelle laughlbachmann. [applause]

>> high. thank you for taking the time to come out. i am so glad you're here. >> welcome. good to see you. thank you. >> what i would like to do is my name is tim carter. and i am one of the leaders of the tea party. i want to welcome you to this event in new hampshire. i want to say a few comments before i get started to put into context what will happen here today. first of all, the good lord has provided us with that absolutely spectacular autumn day in new hampshire, but i need to tell you that there are storm clouds on the horizon, and there is a political purpose storm that is brewing right now, and the center of the storm is president obama is ideology.

unfortunately that storm is just as powerful as the one that almost tore apart our nation's back in the early days in 1861 when we were still young, tender nation. at that time the issue was human rights, but this time it is an economic one. right now our country is in deep trouble. we're being attacked by foreign and domestic enemies. what we need to understand is that we need a leader right now that has the ability to think long-term in make the decisions that will allow future generations of americans to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. i maintain we need a leader right now that embraces the u.s. constitution and recognizes it as a one of a kind sacred document that it is. i maintain we need a leader right now that knows how to create jobs, has a track record for doing it, that actually runs a small business and helps

maintain a weekly payroll. i maintain we need a leader that honors the sanctity of life and recognizes the backbone of a strong america starts at this dinner table. i maintain that we need a courageous leader right now that has the courage that will absolutely make the tough decisions that need to be made right now at this historic moment in our country so that we can't rebuild america to what it used to be. here is the best part. that leader right now that have all of those qualities and many more that i have not named is right here standing in our midst, and it is a great honor -- i want to tell you right now, it is a great honor and privilege to introduce to you the next president of the united bachmann.ichelle ka [applause] thank you.

what a terrific introduction, and thank you for being here. please come and find a seat, and maybe we can find a few more. we welcome everyone who was coming. what a glorious day in new hampshire. are we thrilled to be able to be here? this is the best auditorium we could ever ask for. thank you for taking on what is the number one weekend in new hampshire to think you are here on this sunday afternoon doing your duty as an american citizen to help choose the next president of the united states. people in new hampshire take this very seriously, and on behalf of the rest of the nation, i want to thank you for taking this as seriously as you do. this is your time. bachmann.s michelle kaufm

i am running to be the next president of the united states in 2012, because i believe with everything within needs that 2012 is our last chance to take the country back and get it on the right course. and i believe we can get us on the right course, but it is going to be a very difficult proposition to do. it can be done, but i am not here to sugar coat, it will be very difficult to do. we can do it. we are americans we are in the live free or die states. we know how to make tough decisions, and it can be done. and it is your day in your time. i want to give you as much time as we can for all of your questions, i want to open up with a few remarks. what i want to say is that no matter what course of action we take going forward, the first place we have to begin is in cutting spending at the federal level, because you need to consider that this year your

government is spending 40 percent signed -- 40% more than what it is taking in. it would be one thing if it was just one year and just one emergency, but it is not. it is one very long protracted bad habit, and they have been doing this for a long time. let me give you a little context. the day that i came in and took office -- i have been fighting nonstop for five years in washington. i have spent my whole live in the private sector. for the past five years i've been fighting in washington. the day i came into office we were 8.67 trillion dollars in debt. it took as 219 years to get 8.67 trillion dollars in debt. we were it gasping for air at that much money in debt. how were we ever going to pay

that off? you know the way it works, every year you spend money and you hear about a deficit, that is the amount we spend too much of. that is one problem, overspending and one year. the bigger problem is all look the accumulated over spending over a number of years. we're paying that big credit card tabs. it was 8.67 the day i came in. anyone want to guess what it is today? 16.7 trillion dollars. that is why you did not see me as much as i wanted to be here this summer in new hampshire, because i needed to be in washington, d.c. i was one of the lone voices saying no, stop, we cannot do this. the question was will we give barack obama another two. trillion dollar blank check?

this was the other option we could have taken. we have enough money coming in to pay the interest on the debt. we could have paid interest, and then what we needed to do was set priorities. what we needed to do was do it now. set the priorities now. now is when we have to do it. >>[laughter] [applause] the biggest mistake this congress made was to keep the game going. they did not want to stop. it is more fun to spend money than get your act together. imagine if you did this in your own life. imagine if you spend everything you make in the year by june, and then you decided that is no good, i am going to keep spending, but you spend it all, so you find some foolish banker to give you a check so you can keep the level of spending until

the next check. are you better off or worse off? you were worse off. you will not even make it until june the next year because you have to make interest payments on your debts. maybe you will only make it until may. do you see how every year you get in a worse position than you were before? that is where we are today. we are 4.5 years we have practically doubled the national debt and what took us 219 years to acquire. at a certain point the music will stop. that is why it it was imperative upon us this summer -- we should have stopped this summer rather than adding 2.4 trillion, because that will only get us through until next year. then we are worse off next year than we are now. then who was going to say no? at a certain point we will say

no. it is just like it there was an iceberg in front of the ship. if there is an iceberg and you see it and you know it is there and your moment of accounting when you have to answer for all the spending you have made from if you know the day of reckoning is coming, would it make a lot more sense to get your house in order now? for people that take their credit cards in the cannot control themselves and put it in water and put in the freezer so they can i get at their credit- card anymore. i'm telling you, the federal permission not only freeze it, we should cut them off. -- should not only freeze it, we should cut them off. you were the ones that have to walk and get the second third and fourth jobs to pay off their spending. barack obama told us, give me

one trillion dollars. there was no money to give him, so he went and borrowed one trillion dollars. he lost 2.5 million jobs. that equation did not work well. all of this is nonsense. what we understand is the dramatic government intervention going back to the $700 billion bailout, which onei was one of the chief voices in washington say do not give the bailout. do not give -- for the first time in the history of a nation come of blank check for $700 billion. i said to the treasury secretary behind closed doors when they were telling us we had to give them this authority -- i said what is your evidence? what do you have to show me that if we give you this blank check this will turn it all around?

on what possible basis will it work? they have nothing. he said i have nothing to show you. i said did you cannot have my vote, and i did not give him my vote. that 700 billion led to the automobile bailout, which led to the trojan dollar stimulus, which led to the mortgage bailout -- which led to the trillion dollar stimulus, which led to the mortgage bailout. now we are at the point where we are continually giving out 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. it goes on and on, and someone has to pay for that. here we are 4.5 times later -- years' time later we have doubled the national debt. i am a formal tax litigation attorney. that is all i did -- work with taxes. that is my background and expertise i get how devastating high taxes are for individuals

and businesses and families. i have seen farmers lose their farms. i have seen people lose their houses before. it is not fun to see. taxes are so high in so out of control, and you may be no a couple of people that have a house and foreclosure or near foreclosure or the house right now is under water -- they owe more on it and the house is worth. this is happening all over america. it is not funny or cute. it is reality. there are people right now better paychecks away from losing their house. there are people right now that do not know if there want to limit job much longer. we see it even in new hampshire. it is real. we need a very difficult -- different kind of a president in 2012. a constitutional conservative. someone who will say what they mean and mean what they say. that is the kind of person i

have been every day i have been in washington. i have taken the course of the american people to the halls of congress. now i want to take your voices into the white house where it has not been heard for a long time. that is my goal. [applause] but i promise you this is your time, so let's get to your questions. i cannot wait to hear what you have to say. thank you so much. >> welcome congress woman. in a world where many foreign leaders have very little respect for women in general, how will you stand up to some of the leaders of those rogue nations when they look down upon women any way? would you give them what for and stand up to them with all this, too? >> i absolutely will.

i been married 33 years. iran had raised 28 children. the vikings their doubt and raised 28 good kids come i can steer down a dictator. and i can do it. the united states right now is not respected across the world. and i hear that over and over again from colleagues as all of us are going around the world visiting different leaders. we are not respected. it is not because barack obama is a man or i am a woman. it is because of the policies the united states has had. barack obama has put forward a persona of weakness regarding the united states. one of the greatest areas of weakness is when he put daylight between united states and israel. one of the first presidents to do that. that was a very bad decision that the president made. i believe he helped to create a climate of hostility and the middle east region. unlike anything we've seen in the past 40 years.

and i am very upset about what the president has done and the level of hostilities and the fact that the present has led from behind. that is his administration's word. that is his foreign policy, leading from behind. when i am president of the united states, i will leave from the front. one thing you can be assured is i will not apologize for the united states of america. that will never happen. because the united states is the greatest force for good in the history of the world. this is another reason why our economic strength is so vital. let me answer this. the international monetary fund has said and this may be the last election when the united states is the number one economic superpower of the world, because they say by

2015, what other nation will eclipse us? china. this is the other thing you need to know. reagan understood this. if you want to be their premier in military superpower, you have to be the premier economic superpower of the world in order to support that. right now we are sending interest payments over to china. six weeks ago china launched their first naval aircraft carrier. guests who paid for that aircraft carrier? we did. guess who was bang for the jet fighter craft? we are. by 2015 our interest payments will be so large we will pay for the anti your people's liberation army of china, which is the world's largest employer. our interest debts will be so high within 10 years that we will spend more money financing the interest on u.s. debt than we spend on the entire united

states military. there will be choices that have to be made, and how much do you want to think that our politicians in washington will choose our military over welfare payments? these are very important times that we live in, and that is why i say this is the election of all elections in 2012. we have to choose wisely for 2012. we cannot just have the other team in another jersey this time. that is not good enough. it is not good enough just to settle for anyone but barack obama. this is the election when we have to have a constitutional conservative who gets the problems in washington, who from day one will know what to do. that is what i bring to the field that is different from anyone else. and i have been fighting from the front lines, even taking on my own party, because i believe you put principle over party. right now it has to be about the nation, and we've got to get the country back. [applause]

>> my name is mike marino. i am from new hampshire. my question to you is directed to your experience as a tax litigator. a large number of us have paid taxes over our lifetime. yet we all know there is a large underground economy cash earners to do not report their fair share. what can you do about that and equal playing field for us? >> i think one reason you are seeing such a large underground of what you might call a black market is because there is a tax theory that says any time you tax people more than 20% of their income, and that would be from all sources, so that would be state, local, federal, sales tax added all up. once it reaches more than 20% of a person's income on average,

human behavior says that thiis o much. unfortunately people break the law by not reporting that income. what that says is we are taxing people too much money, and i think that is true. we're taxing people too much, because the government is doing too many things it has no business doing. we need to back the government off of doing things that is doing right now. there is departments i would shut down, for instance. i think we need to completely cut back on what government is spending, and then we will not need to tax people at that level. >> another question over here >> . you talk about taxation, but

what we have seen is a double down or crippled down or quadruple down on policies that of been driving business out of the country for 40 years in 50 years. why are we talking about cutting those so we can stop driving jobs away and bring them back? >> you are right. that is one of the key component of my economic recovery plan. part of what i want to do is introduce a mother of all repeals bill. so when the liberals get in power, they have the mother of all spending bills. i want a mother of all repeals bill. the number one thing i hear from john greeters, and i am a job creator, we turn a profit and we think turning a profit is a good thing. we want more people to be able to turn a profit in their business. the job creators to tell me

that the regulatory compliance kills them and is more aggregating and more of a hassle than anything else they deal with. the number one regulatory problem that there is today is the government takeover of health care called obama care. that is the number one regulatory burden. three weeks ago ubs came out with the study that said the number one reason businesses are not hiring is because of all, care. it makes sense. that makes sense. -- the number one reason businesses are not hiring is because of obama care. you know who this hurts more than anyone? unskilled workers. you know why we have african- american youth unemployment at 45 percent signed right now? it is because you have regulatory burdens. the regulatory burden more than anything else is keeping employers from hiring these good kids or hispanic kids in the 30% range.

good kids that want the job cannot work. we're talking about people who are here legally and cannot work, it is because the regulatory burden is keeping employers from hiring them. i was considered the chief critic of barack obama on obama care. that is a badge of honor. [applause] i am the chief author of the bill to repeal obama care, and also to kill the jobs and mortgage destruction act. dodd-frank does to financial- services but the banking insurance industry that obama does to help care. in other words, it destroys it. how many you have heard there will be a new $5 feet on debit cards? thank you very much federal government. thank you very much barney frank. if you very much chris dodd -- thank you very much chris dodd

for putting that in place. that is why the regulatory burden is killing job creation. more than anything else, it is the regulatory burden that is killing job creation. 1.8 trillion dollars every year in compliance and regulation does not even include dodd- frank. includenot even open obama care. i will not rest until i can also elect a 13 more light-minded u.s. senators to go with me to washington so we have a 60 seat filibuster-proof senate so we can repeal obama care. you have to have 60 senators to get rid of it. i am going to let them. [applause] i am an extremely hard-working woman. my last election of tupelo's

and tupelo's me made me a target. -- nancy pelosi. it was of movement and voice we sent to washington. that is the movement i want to take to the white house as well. we do not need to have special interest money. there is enough of us that we can band together and do this thing. do not worry about obama having $1 billion. he will need 12 billion, and that still will not be enough to get him reelected, because i go all over the country, and people have made their mind up. the cake is baked. barack obama will be 01-term president. [applause] i do not take it for granted. i do not take it lightly. but i want you to know, the

american people have made up their mind, and that is just the democrats. so you know the republicans will not vote for him. >> over here. >> welcome back to new hampshire. spur of the moment. the past few weeks we've seen what has gone on in new york city with occupy wall street movement. that is currently spreading to other towns throughout the united states. the media is making a very big comparison between occupy wall street movement and the tea party. if anyone would be able to comment on what kind of a comparison that is, i think it would be you. what, it would you make? take a first of all, i would tell the occupied wall street movement to move to the gates in front of the white house. if you want to go somewhere to

complain about where the economy is, you go and complain at the gates of the white house and never forget it is barack obama who had led to get sick advantage when it came to campaign contributions over john mccain. it was the democrat contributions from wall street that got him elected. that is where they need to go in for this -- focus the energy. the tea party movement was truly organic. what i love about the tea party movement is that it is made up of democrats, independents, republicans. it is made up of constitutional conservatives. people that have never voted a date in their life. the tea party movement is an idea. this idea that it is completely in line from 1776. they said we are taxed enough already they said do not spend more money than what you take in

pyridine and they said act within the limits of the constitution. that is what the tea party moment is saying. that is the movement i identify with. that is the movement that will take the country back. this is it, it is 2012. this is when we do it. we have to win in 2012. if we do not repeal a bomb scare in 2012, we will never repeal it. but the tell you why, because it was so metastasized into the federal government and so metastasized into your state government and to all the private health insurance plans, until the plans collapsed, because that is the intent, that all the private insurance companies will collapse and fall into the government because the original goal has always been socialized medicine. that is what barack obama wants to see come about. there was already a sunday that

said 114 million americans will be thrown off their private health insurance. what happens when that happens? the wall go running to the government. this is not a good picture. in the bill i was one of the people who discovered there was $105,464 million in the obama care bill. you will not find one story written about that before the bill was voted on. how could you have senators and members of congress vote on obama care to spend 105,464 million and not know that that is in the bill? how could they do that? nobody read it. nobody read it. because the bill did not get planted until three hours before they voted on it and assentin the senate. -- did not get printed until

three hours before they voted on it in the senate. barack obama is cashing those checks to implement obama care all over the country. we only have one election. we only have one chance when we can get rid of socialized medicine, and it will change our country forever. forever. in the future we made by some chance to elect a republican again in the future, but we will never again controlled the stays inf obama care s place. that is why this is so serious. that is why when you hear can get it say i will issue an executive order to get rid of all, care, you can know they do not understand how serious repeal obama care is. or when they say i will issue waivers to all the states get rid of obama care. you can know they do not understand what it takes to get rid of it. the only way to get rid of it is

to repeal it. that is the only way. you do that through the united states congress. it will not be easy. this will be like pushing a big boulder up over a granite mountain. this will be really tough to undo, but i am here to tell you today in new hampshire i am up for that fight. that is why i am running for president of the united states, because i am absolutely committed to the full-scale repeal of obama care. it is not dumb -- good enough for the nominees to say there was a behind the desk and we do have the bill. it is clear to take a president that is willing to be a leader and go out before the election, but even after the election it will be hard. the whole bill was nothing but special interest groups. it will take one tough cookie to fight the special interest groups. i am up for it.

that is why i want you to consider well on your choice for who you make your nominee. our canada has to be committed to the fight, not just the issue, but the fight to get rid of it. that is what it will take. we have to fight to get rid of that and dodd-frank, which is the jobs in mortgage destruction bill, and also change the tax code. i have been the only tax lawyer in congress. i i am the only tax lawyers that is running for president. i want to lead the fight to change the tax code. that is the job killing senator of the unions -- of the union. that is what we need. growth the economy and then the jobs follow automatically, because the government does not create jobs, the private-sector does. takeover went to go behind you

again. she is wearing such a beautiful color red. >> i want to tell you, i called it in december of that record to win the straw poll. all of my democrat friends a lot of money that night. i research for three years. i say she is the answer in my book. i want to thank you. we came all the way from texas. he is not securing the border. those illegals are walking free and not being prosecuted. you understand illegal immigration, and i beg you from texas that you fight and fight for us, because illegal immigrants are walking free. he came in my house, in my

governor turned a blind eye. they are being taken from the court documents. this woman understand illegal immigration. he is not doing it and our state. i beg you to take that up the down on the 11th. [applause] >> this is an issue we can address, illegal immigration. i am terribly sorry about your husband. and i think it is something that most americans have just had it up to here with. i know in minnesota we have had our own troubles with immigration. i do not know if there is a state in the union that has not been impacted by this. not only the physical problems you had to deal with, but also the financial problems. go to heritage.org. there is a great steady to talk about the financial costs that are associated with illegal

immigration. this is something where the federal government should be apologizing to the american people for failing to deal with this issue. both parties have not done the right thing by the border. i will. i will build up bent on every inch of the southern border, and i will fully resources all of the order cards. i will tell them if you uphold the law, i will have your back. rather than have the federal government go after the border agents for upholding the law, i will have their back. i will tell you one thing i will not do, i will not sue the state of america for trying to protect their own people. that will not happen either. [applause] we to make sure the ice agents know we will enforce the laws on the book. we have very good ball on the books. we need to stop what the magnet

for illegal immigrant -- illegal beg aliens. our official language of the federal government must be in english. and we are in english speaking language. we need to be in english. we can deal with this problem. we have dealt with a book for quite well. it was in the mid-1960s when things change, and i will deal with this issue. >> welcome to new hampshire, congress woman. one way to cut medical costs would be to do something with tort reform. i am wondering your thoughts towards that. >> i agree with you. we need to have medical malpractice reform and have a cap on suits and judgments. it is out of control, and that has led to the defense of

medicine. there are whole communities that cannot get obstetrician's because it does not pay for them to be in practice anymore. this is a very real issue that is getting passed on to the rest of us. costs are a big issue in health care, and that needs to be addressed. under my plan i want to repeal obama care. once we do that, i want to allow every american the privilege of being able to buy any american -- by any insurance policy with no minimum mandate. did you know you cannot do that now? there is a monopoly with insurance companies and every single company in america. i want to break the monopoly. you want to talk about returning to a free-market system? i love the free market. i am a complete ban of the free market, and i want to make sure people can buy any policy they want with no minimum mandate. then i would like to see people be able to set aside whatever

money they need to pay for the health care, because we all have different levels. some people need to buy a lot of health care, some people very little. i want to set it aside tax-free and paid for your premium, deductible, medical devices, pharmaceutical and whether it is and then have a true medical malpractice reform. that brings the cost down on health care. that is where we need to begin. then we need to back the federal government out of the industry, because the federal government artificially increases the cost and moves people towards help savings accounts. that is what works. health savings accounts. that is what works. we have to have a mind-set change in the country as well. >> in the next question is right in front of you. >> the third rail of politics,

which would be much detail -- medicare social security. how would you deal with this? we're dealing with a great block of voters. they're being frightened about social security. >> they do not need to be frightened, because we need to look at this. it really is a math problem in a lot of ways. we recognize if you have a business, would you keep running your business the same way you did 45 years ago? that is what we're doing with these programs. we're running them exactly the same way. they have to be modernized and updated i think the most important thing is to let people know who are currently on social security that nothing will change. absolutely nothing. we will keep your promise with you, but we also have our promise to keep with younger people, so we need to reform the change. medicare today is down. barack obama has said that system does not work anymore.

this is not even a republican/democrat issue anymore. the best system in my mind would be one that mitch daniels has talked about, the governor of indiana -- former gov. pierre did he has said it will help savings accounts, we would see a real savings. -- said if we have health savings accounts, we would see a real savings. i was in the white house earlier this summer, and we ask the president what the plan is for saving medicare. rather than being afraid to talk about it, we should talk about it, because that is how seniors will not be frightened if we have a positive solution so they know we want to save the system. we know within nine years the medicare hospital trust fund will be dead flat broke. here is a big ice bird out

there. you have a ship going right towards the iceberg call broke. do i really want to see a beautiful frail 85-year-old woman one day be told i am sorry, there is no more money left, you cannot have your hip replacement? no, i love senior citizens. i care about them. my stepdad is 87-years-old. the last thing i want for him to find out is the coverage is there, but it will be buried in less than nine years. less than nine years. we must -- to meet this is a moral issue. an issue of morality. do we love senior citizens or not? i do. i love them. belet's fix it and not afraid of it. [applause] social security is definitely

something we could look at. their population is far different than our population, but we can certainly look at what would work for our system. people that are currently on social security, nothing changes. it is for people moving up to that system where i think we can have a far better system for young people than what we have today. >> return on investment. that is right. the other thing a lot of people do not know when it comes to social security, people think that let's say your name is bob smith in people think there is an account in washington, and all the money you have been sending to washington -- you say i would like to have a dividend that people pay in, and people say what? when they go to open the door

for social security, the only iou'sthat flies out our i yoare because the politicians went in and took york salsa's security money and they blew it on big government welfare dependency programs. it is gone. they have already spent more money. that is a travesty. anywhere else he would be in jail for doing that the federal government has gone away with it. that has to end. we no longer can spend at the level we are. that is why when i started today as at the number one thing is spending. that is really the problem, too much spending. we have to go with what works, and that is what works in your life, in your business, that is what works in your church. it is not spending more money than what you take in and living within a budget. what a concept. that is what i promise you i

will do. i promise you. that is what sets me apart. i say what i mean and mean what i say. i do not overpromise. i do what i say i'm going to do. this will take very serious tough love, and i am not interested in going to washington so i can be there for two terms. i am going there because i feel the same way you do about this country, you absolutely love it. you see 235 years down the road to the next generation. just like john adams and the founders did 235 years ago. they saw us sitting here today, and they paid unimaginable price so that we could be here. now the question is, will we pay the price of common sense and stop spending away the future of america? i am here to tell you it will come faster than anyone thinks,

this day of reckoning. i do not mean to be melodramatic or overstate the case, but i do not think we can say it enough. it will come sooner than anyone thinks. so let's deal with it now. this is the last chance. in my opinion, this is the last go around to catch the last link of liberty. if we do not do it now, i do not know there is another day. that is why this is so imperative. >> to the front of you and to the right. i am pleased to introduce you to our national committeewoman, phyllis acker. [applause] >> thank you for what you do. >> welcome back to new hampshire. >> i love being back. i wish i could've come back earlier, but i was fighting the debt ceiling all summer.

>> i am sure you are aware that we insure has been playing chicken with the bad debt and i know what try to figure out what's on first regarded the primaries. we have a state law that says we will be the first primary state, and i am wondering what your feelings are on that. we found ourselves in a situation where we really have a state law we need to comply with, and yet we do not want to go back, because we do not think that would be the best for the candidates. and what is your feeling about that? >> all i know is i want to be your number one, your sweetheart here in new hampshire, so i will be here competing come and hopefully successfully here in new hampshire for that spot. i know this year the jockeying was set by florida pretty much,

and everyone had to follow suit. i will follow whatever law and rules new hampshire comes up with. there is a lot worse places you can be campaigning in new hampshire. we will be delighted to be here. i think the message that new hampshirites have told me is completely compatible with they fight for liberty, they hate high taxes and they hate overspending. they don't want a phony. they want the real thing. i spent years that the tip of the spear fighting obama care, fighting dodd-frank and the trillion dollar stimulus and the overspending and the bailout. i have been there fighting.

one thing people can know about me is that this is not just talk. i have five years of action, laying myself down, flight after flight after flight, so you know when i go to the white house, you will have someone who is absolutely going to do these very tough things. do you know how tough it is going to be to cut 40% of the budget? do you know how tough that is to shut down apartments like shutting down the department of education or shutting down the epa? it is going to take some doing. you don't think there is going to be some blood back? i don't think we have benefited from the federal department of education. i don't think the epa has been benefiting our job creators. we have 50 epas across the

country. there are a case by case situations we can deal with on the federal level, but it is time to change course. that's what my candidacy offers to the american people. i'm up for it sooner rather than later. if you want to have it in december, i'm up for it in december. the people i talk to which the election was today, and that's the democrats. i'm up for it. i wish it was too because people will talk to me about obama and how we need to change things in d.c.. our change is coming. it's 2012, and that's why we cannot see this as just another election. it isn't. it's our last chance. we cannot get wrong with this nominee. it's got to be someone who really gets the problem, who

understands the times we live in, but the most important ingredient is they have to have the political courage to do it. i have been there. i have been there were i have been the only vote. we need to have someone who is willing to be the only vote because you know what i see when i go to cast my vote? i see your faces. i see the people in the district i represent because that is why serve. i'm not serving a leadership in washington. i'm not serving the special interests. i serve the people in this country. there was a guy at quitting time. he was punching out and he said if you are president, there's only one thing i want from you. i want you to give the country back to the people because i have a 6-year-old grandson and i don't think we're going to go on. i said what is his name and he said his name is isaac. he said i don't even think this

little boy is going to grow up and see what i know today. i was at the airport, flying here to manchester. the guy who waited on me at the information desk was from argentina. he came in 1970 and he said this country is not the same country that he came to in 1970. my heart sunk to my toes when he said that to me. but i knew that he was right. i knew it was true. but we are better than that. i know we are better than that. the people i talked to across the country, they want us to be that country again. i know we can be. for instance, the dollar. i'm tired of seeing the dollar floating and not worth anything any more because we've lost 12% of the value of the dollar just in time barack obama has been in office. a 12% loss. when the dollar isn't tied to

anything of value, are washington runs the printing presses and they inflate money and they lose. they are stealing from us. i want to legalize american energy production in this country. legalize it. because we should be drilling. we have more energy in the united states than any other country. we are the most energy-resources rich country in the world. we have more oil than saudi arabia. we have 25% of the coal in the whole world. we have that much coal. one of the largest fines for natural gas, we just discovered in pennsylvania. this is 1.4 million high-paying jobs. that's where i'm going to start as president. that's a freebie. just legalize american energy and the private-sector creates 1.4 million high-paying jobs so that all the men out there who

want to provide for their families can. do you know how sad that is to see a man or woman who wants to provide for their family and they cannot. this is a country filled with people who want to provide with their families. they want to work. let's give them work. legalize american energy. start there. there are so many avenues where we can start and i can't wait to get started. [applause] >> i came from the perspective of not trusting obama and thinking he is a liar and i would appreciated if e he voted against him and you didn't. i had to write my question down. but anybody who has followed

since 2008 that obama as far left ideological views. he does not like america. associates with radicals. he is a liar. he supports the occupy wall street crowd and disparages the tea party clout. it could be concluded he has marxist beliefs. trying to collapse this system, i'm one of the ones who believes he's doing it on purpose. if you become the republican candidate, will you address these things and hit him hard and not be afraid of being called a racist? that's what happened in 2008, nobody would hit him hard. [applause] to be arrogant when i say this, but the thing i would look forward to more than anything is -- as the republican

nominee is taking barack obama on in the debates and holding him accountable for four years of destroying the country. that's what i would look forward to doing. it would be a pleasure. an absolute pleasure. >> we have one more question. >> what are your thoughts about getting rid of the department of energy? >> it going to be a very long day. i will go to the department of education and turn the lights off and locked the door there. then i will go to the epa and i will turn the lots off and lock the door there. then we will go over to the department of energy and say any more of those loans you have laying around here? we will turn off the lights and a lock the doors there. there'll be lots of for sale signs all across washington d.c.

wouldn't it be wonderful to turn those government buildings into for-profit centers and have businesses come along and buy up those buildings? we would all be a lot better off. >> this will be the last question. >> you talk about tax code changes. what is your feeling on a fair tax? >> for those who don't know, it's a consumption tax. it is essentially a national sales tax. what it would envision is that all other taxes would be eliminated and we would only have a national sales tax. they're estimating about 23% sales tax. that would combine with whenever there is at the state level. there is controversy about it. if you have a brand new system,

it is one to consider. what is appealing is the fact that everyone would participate in that system. that's part of the problem have today. only 53% of all americans pay any federal income tax. 47% to not. that is wrong. what i would like to do is lead a national debate, whether it's on a national consumption tax or the other tax system being proposed is a flat tax where everyone would pay the same tax whether its 10% or 15% or whatever, you just pay a flat tax and change the tax code. i would like to lead that debate because this is such a huge change. you have to have by and from the american people. -- you have to have buy in from the american people. i think we can all agree the

current tax system doesn't work. i'd think we have unanimous consent. it is at 3.8 million words. it doesn't work. no matter what tax system we take in, the real issue is spending. what comes first, the chicken or the egg? if we cut back on the spending, we have to have a system where everyone participates. everybody should pay something. everybody needs to pay something. everybody needs to pay in. you're going to have some kind of enforcement mechanism, -- here is the other thing about the irs. under obama care, that is to enforce is obama care. but they are hiring 16,500 new

irs agents, as if we didn't have enough, to enforce obama care. if he needed anymore reasons to get rid of it, and remember, one chance. if there is only one thing you remember about today, take this with you. there is one chance to get rid of obama care. it is this election. you cannot executive order away. you cannot wait for it away. you can only repeat what which means it has to go through both the house and the senate and the president has to sign it. i've got the will to make that happen. i will not leave office until it is done and i will pay attention to that until it is done. are we done? >> ladies and gentleman, a big round of applause for congresswoman michele bachmann. [applause] what we would like to do right

now, many of the people know this next gentleman, the son of the former governor of new hampshire. we call him that taxman and you will see him why. -- we call him the axe man and you will see why we call on that. >> thank you for coming to new hampshire and bringing us this beautiful weather. i appreciate your words on energy and spending, cutting spending and cutting the size of government. that represents what we have on this axe and for others. that was my father's tax when he campaigned across the state of new hampshire. -- my father's axe when he campaigned across the state of new hampshire. this election is not so much about me, it's about my

grandchildren. and a five-week old granddaughter and a grandson. i want them to have the america the most of us to have gray hair today realized. it's going to take someone within the republican party to lead us out of this mess obama has gotten us into. thank you for coming to new hampshire and i have a pledge which i have put together and i would appreciate it if you would sign it. but before that, i have one other thing. this is a picture of michele on april 29th that a presidential summit in new hampshire. and she does know how to swing the ax. i would appreciate if you wouldn't mind signing it for me. >> i absolutely will.

i can't wait to swing it all over washington d.c. [applause] thank you. >> we have to pledges because i don't want to lose one. when we get all done, we're going to present one to the secretary of state. >> my pledge to the american people as candidate for president, i will work tirelessly to cut taxes, fees and regulations which are destroying small businesses and jobs. cut spending and reduce the national debt. cut the size of government at all levels. i will do it at the federal

level because i do believe that the states and locals should deal with their own in the federal government should stay out. secure our borders by using whatever means are necessary. build a fence. sorry about that. become energy independent within eight years, hopefully sooner than that. faithfully uphold and enforce the constitution with all my might. [applause] thank you for this great effort you are doing. >> thank you again for coming into new hampshire and campaigning and bringing all of these media folks with you. we have a state with no sales tax, soloed up before you leave. [applause]

>> we better go double down on our order of maple syrup. i just want to say that god has blessed this nation so richly, we cannot take for granted. sometimes i think we grew up with so much that we take for granted. but i've been on the front lines that i see what's happening. i've never seen anything like it before. i thought i saw a lot coming from the state of minnesota to see how the tax and are spending in minnesota. i'm telling you, you could hear the hour glass when it tips over and the sands are running out. the time is very short. consider that wisely when you are considering your choice for 2012. this is the election that's going to change the nation one way or another. let's make it positive. oflet's have a big round profit -- a big round of applause for the next president

of the guided states, michele bachmann. and a big round of applause for senator forssmann. -- senator a forester. [applause] ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> what's your name?

that's a beautiful name. [inaudible] that's the same year my parents were naturalized. that is when immigration actually worked. [inaudible] we would start today putting it back on track. thank you. what's your name? >> [inaudible]

>> thank you. i want your vote. >> from the very beginning, we knew obama was wrong. we know it will get rectified. >> thank you. i need that support. tell everyone that you know. thank you for coming out today. do you live right here? >> i live a couple of towns over. >> thank you for carving out some time and coming. i want your vote. thank you. >> i can't wait till you become

president. you are the most common sense person in the world. i'm completely irish and my folks came from ireland. they delivered eight children and they got into real estate and they had their opportunity. i want you to give that back to everybody. you are and delight in the sky. i love you and i want you to become president. >> i need you to go tell everybody. thank you very much. do you have something you want me to sign? >> i don't. >> do we have a sign?

>> thank you. >> my son is in the air force. he is a pilot. >> my dad was in the air force. tell your son how grateful we are and i hope for your vote and his two. thank you for coming out today. thank you for taking your time. i hope you will consider giving me your vote when the day comes. thank you.

>> these are hot off the presses. this is the best constitution in the united states. >> i'm glad to have it. good to see you guys. i'm glad you were here. it's good to see wonderful faces. what's your name? >> i love everything you have

said. i've watched a decline of this country over my lifetime. >> its hard, isn't it? the good thing is we know the formula that works, don't we? we just have to put it into place. i'm so glad you came. do you want some help to get to your car? i want to have your vote. what's your name? good to me you. >> thank you very much for being here. i love what you are saying. >> i need to have your support. thank you very much. what's your name? >> [inaudible]

[inaudible]

>> thank you that you came. i want your vote. >> [inaudible] [inaudible]

>> i need your vote. tell everybody you know. i'm so happy you are here. i need your vote. would you tell everybody you know?

>> it do you need help? >> the country needs help.

>> [inaudible] >> you guys are on your way -- did you take a whole big vacation? how long have you been on vacation? where's mommy?

>> they had really good lobster rolls. >> coming up this afternoon, we will go live to new hampshire as presidential candidate mitt romney holds a town hall meeting. former senator judd gregg will endorse mr. romney for president. live coverage gets underway at 5:30 eastern here on c-span. a major -- the major republican candidates will be in dartmouth tomorrow for a debate on the economy. c-span.org will have live coverage of the debate in the spin room. that is at c-span.org. >> watch more video of the candidates. see what political reporters are

saying, and track the latest campaign contributions with c- span's website for campaign 2012. it helps you navigate the political landscape with candidates biographies and the latest polling data plus links to c-span media partners. >> tonight, on c-span2, a look at the proposed 1,700 mile pipeline to carry crude oil from alberta, canada from illinois on to the ago -- to the gulf coast. >> we need to stand together with mother earth. mother earth is crying. our prophesy says one mother earth cries, we fight for her. she will die and we will die with her. crying earth, rise up, rise up and say no to this pipeline.

note to death. >> this is not a regional impact. this is a national impact. if approval of this pipeline were to come through, it would help stimulate our economic recovery, put us back at our feet and many here today focus on job creation. >> the man is lying. >> they will have the opportunity to have some of the best paying jobs here in the united states. >> we will show that entire public hearing, the last in a series hosted by the state department, and differing views of the pipeline tonight, starting at 8:30 eastern on c- span2. >> of the former president of pakistan, pervez musharraf spoke at the third annual ideas forum hosted by the atlantic magazine. a number of u.s. and world leaders talk about your that has

passed and the year that lies ahead. in this interview, he talks about u.s.-pakistan relations. >> good morning, everyone. i was struck as i began to do just background reading by this fact. president musharraf is exactly 10 years older than i am. the volume of what he's worked into his 68 years so surpasses my 58 years. let me give you a [inaudible] that volume. so born in 1943. that's four years before the great partition of india and pakistan. president musharraf's earliest memories were being on that night train traveling to pakistan as it was being created as a country. they arrived, lived with 18 people in a two-room apartment. the family moved to ankara, turkey, where president musharraf learned turkish. he came back and was not a model citizen in high school. he created -- i have three

teenage boys, something i don't -- i'm not favorably disposed to -- small time bombs during his high school years. then was in the military, career military, was chief of the army staff, the 13th chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and then, in an odd and surprising bloodless coup, became ceo and then president of pakistan. there have been six assassination attempts. he has fought in two wars. he is in one marriage, two daughters, two pekingese dogs. it is only as to the dogs that my life has been fuller and more exemplary. let me begin with that odd bloodless coup. just tell us a story. you were -- it's 1999, you were overseas. >> yes. yes i was. i was in sri lanka. and i returned from there. when i returned i -- i was traveling in a normal commercial flight. we had about, i think, 300

passengers or 250 passengers. i think 90 of them were school students. and as we approached karachi and we were -- we came down to about 8,000 feet, the pilot called me to the cockpit, through my military [inaudible] it's very important. and, when i went there, he told me that we are not being allowed to land and we've been told to rise -- go up to 21,000 feet. and then they said that you cannot land in pakistan, get out of pakistan's airspace. now, that was quite a shock, but i -- i presumed that this must involve me, obviously, why else would the second order be passed. when we rose to 21,000 feet, initially, the pilot said that we can either go to an air field in -- on the -- in the gulf or in india.

so that could be unimaginable for me to land in india as the army chief. so therefore, we -- when we rose to 21,000 feet i was told that we don't have fuel to go out of pakistan now. so i said, tell the people -- i was not in contact with anyone ground, absolutely, so this negotiation between the pilot and the air traffic controller started to allow us to land there. he was taking about five, six minutes because he was, i think, passengers passing messages directly to the prime minister of pakistan and then getting messages back what to say. so this was taking a lot of time and i told him to land in karachi irrespective of the permission. he said there are fire tenders on the runway so, therefore, we cannot land and all the lights have been switched off.

so -- so i went back. we were halfway and the pilot said we have just enough fuel, you take a decision immediately whether you want to go to nawabshah or back to karachi. i said back to karachi. and when we landed we had only about eight minutes of fuel, and when i landed, well, i was in charge of pakistan. [laughter]

>> many of us have had bad flights and not had it work out this well. [laughter] so, let's roll forward a little bit. it's 1999, we've moved forward to 2004. there's a poll taken, global poll. president musharraf is the most popular president in the world. we thought relations between the united states and pakistan were strong. you were at least publicly supportive of president bush, supportive of the united states and the war on terror. we were spending $2 billion in security. now you roll forward again to today, a poll in pakistan shows that the united states is viewed as the number one external threat to the country. if you talk to u.s. policymakers there's a very acute concern about the way pakistan is going and whether it is a good ally. so it seems to me the best thing that we could understand after a few minutes of talking with you is sort of what went wrong, from the pakistani view, what went wrong?

so, let me start, when you were president, did you already see the relations slipping away between the united states and pakistan? >> well, now they are, yes. but i think in my time there is no doubt in my mind we had a -- a degree of trust and confidence. and i believe relations between states quite a lot to do with interpersonal relations. interstate relations have a lot to do with interpersonal relations between the leaders. and may i, very proudly, say that i had a relationship with president bush and secretary colin powell. in that [inaudible] there were any doubts or misunderstandings we could ring up each other and talk directly. and as general colin powell used to say, let's talk general to a general, and that used to be very, very straight upright talking. so that used to resolve issues. i wonder whether that exists now. that understanding, that mutual confidence maybe is not there and, therefore, yes, there is a total breakdown of trust and

confidence and that is what is harming the relationship. >> and what do you think that the united states doesn't understand that makes pakistan not trust us? let's do people on the street first. what do we not understand about why they're upset? >> because of history, but i wouldn't like to go into too much detail with the 20 minutes that we have. firstly, of course, it has a history in the past. we were strategic partners with the united states all along since our independence. but, then -- and between '79 and '89 we were with the united states to fight against the soviet union in afghanistan. but then in 1989, suddenly the united states decides to quit the area with no rehabilitation, no resettlement of the 25,000 mujahedeen we brought. and, when that happened, and there was a strategic policy shift of united states, sanctions on pakistan and a pro- india tilt.

now, this was seen extremely negatively by the people of pakistan in that we have been used and then betrayed. this is the feeling of the people of pakistan. >> and is there a feeling like that today? >> yes. >> what is that based on? >> the feeling now is that this happened and for 12 years we were totally abandoned, we were all alone fending for ourselves with whatever was happening in afghanistan where the -- where the mujahedeen coalesced into al qaida, where the taliban came up in 1996 and pakistan was all alone, fending for itself. then comes 9/11 and united states appears on the scene again. we are again in the lead role. now the people were asking is, "how are you sure that we are not to be betrayed again, same thing will not happen, that we'll be used again and betrayed again?" so these are -- this has a historical past which has led to -- to mistrust and antipathy against the united states at the people's level. till 1979 -- till 1989

everything was happening through pakistan, so one has to judge, what happened beyond 1989. and i have told you what happened beyond 1989. and now that we are planning to leave in 2014, that has its -- that has its impact on the people again. now -- now, pakistan has to think. now, i'm not in governance, i'm not speaking on behalf of the government, but my personal view is that certainly there must be some analysis going on what will happen in afghanistan if united states leaves an unstable afghanistan. are we returning to the situation in 1989 when afghanistan was ravaged and every ethnic group was fighting each other? or are we returning to 1996 when it was two groups, taliban versus northern alliance? northern alliance of minority, uzbek, tajik, hazaras. one of the two situations will certainly be there if you leave an unstable afghanistan and its impact with directly, first of all, be on pakistan, secondly to be on india, and then, of course, the world.

so we have to be very conscious what are the implications of quitting in a situation which is unstable in afghanistan? so we have to analyze all this and the impact on pakistan. >> frame for us -- i think it's hard for americans to understand the frame through which so many pakistanis view this relationship. i mean -- let me do that over. the significance of india in the framing of pakistani thought. what is the concern that pakistan has and is it its largest concern and do you think we don't understand that? >> yes. you are -- i wouldn't imagine that you don't understand, but i can say that you maybe show a lack of concern. there is an issue with india certainly. we've fought wars, there's a

kashmir dispute, the [inaudible] dispute, et cetera, which is terrible and which i strongly believe has to be resolved. i am a strong believer that we have to resolve our disputes and have peace. i have been called in india at that time a man of war because i have, yes, i have fought two wars and i am a military man and a soldier. but i have always been saying that i am a man of war, but i am a man for peace because i understand the ravages of war, which maybe very few people understand, because my son is named after my best friend, who got killed in action. so, therefore, i understand ravages, how much you suffer in war. so, therefore, i am a man for peace. having said that -- >> what do you think india's -- >> yes? >> what do you think india's ambition is? >> yes, now, having said that, there is, unfortunately, always over the past decades, since 1950, since our independence, a tussle between the two intelligence organization and the two countries, which means raw on one side, isi on the

other side, and this has been happening all over these decades. now, this must go if we must resolve dispute. now, in the late history, the past three or four years, this manifestation is in afghanistan. in afghanistan there is some kind of a proxy conflict going on between pakistan and india. india is trying to create an anti-pakistan afghanistan. >> why? what's it's ambition? >> it's ambition must be to weaken pakistan, to -- to have a weak pakistan so that it can be dominated, so that it doesn't have any confrontationist attitude, which doesn't go well its -- with india's vision of dominating the region and maybe being a -- one of the -- if not a -- if not a world power, at least a regional power. >> it's not a military concern, it's a preeminence, trade -- >> yes, it can -- i mean, dominance in todays' world, i

think, dominating a country or moving against a country doesn't mean that they want to take over pakistan. i don't think that can happen. after all, they helped bangladesh get independence. they haven't taken over bangladesh. but it implies dominating their foreign policy, dominating their economic policies, their trade, their commerce. so, that is way how you -- how you suppress, how you -- how you control or dominate another country. >> and where does this problem rank in your concerns? is this the largest concern you have? >> largest concern? >> in foreign policy concerns. >> well, it's not such a great concern, if at all we don't have this problem to afghanistan. we know that afghanistan's intelligence, afghanistan's diplomats, afghanistan's soldiers, all the army, security people, they all go to

india for training. pakistan and i had offered them training facilities free of cost in pakistan, to all of them. not one man has come to pakistan for training. they go to india. so, therefore, we receive intelligence, diplomats, soldiers indoctrinated against pakistan's interests. so, this is what we must understand must stop. india must stop it and the united states must understand pakistan's concern what is happening in afghanistan. so, therefore, these are [inaudible]. i would say that united states needs to understand pakistan's sensitivities. i see that there is a lack of concern for pakistan's sensitivities. >> let me -- let me switch it the other way, tell you two issues we don't understand, both of which i know you can speak to easily. the first one is where bin laden was found.

if he was there for five years, and we don't know that he was there for five years, he would have been there during your presidency. i've heard you speak on this. explain why you don't believe the isi or the army knew his location. >> yes, i think this is a critical issue and it's terrible. let me, first of all, admit it's a -- it's a terrible thing that happened. it has to be clarified by pakistan because people, i know, do not believe. that there was an issue of complicity versus negligence. that is the issue. was pakistan complicit or was it negligence? i, personally, through all my analysis say it was not complicity, it was negligence. now, why do i say that? if i was, briefly, to give some rationale or reasoning, first of all, if he was there for five years, that means two years of his tenure was in my time. so, whether anyone in this hall believes it or not, i did not know.

so, therefore, i am 500 percent sure that i didn't know. so, therefore, there is no complicity. so, there was no complicity in those two years. now, let's come to those -- these three years. i don't think there was complicity because, first of all, nobody in that area knew that it is osama bin laden inside. all the pakistani television channels, which are very, very independent today in pakistan, over 50, 60 of them, have interviewed people around. none of them ever -- not one of them said that we knew osama bin laden is inside. when he is not using any communication, you are banking on human intelligence, and human intelligence is what people are telling you around. so that was not the case. secondly, people -- a lot of people here think that this house was -- had such high walls, such a huge house. i'm very sorry to say that i've seen this on television, i haven't seen the house there

physically, but, you don't have walls around your houses. in pakistan every house has a wall. and i don't see in television, with full honesty, that this is anything unusual in the height of those walls. and, i don't see in that house to be anything unusual. it's a slightly better, slightly bigger house than an average house. so i don't see anything unusual in this. and then, thirdly, if at all he was there, there would have been some security around. would such an important personality be left alone unguarded by anyone, free to go and come, come and go? why wouldn't he be used as a bargaining leverage, bargaining chip? why wouldn't i have used it as a bargaining chip in my time if i knew this man is with us? so, therefore, i think it's the pure case -- another point. people are -- misread -- people misread that this was a garrison town. abbottabad is a town of about

500,000 roughly. it's -- it's a tourist resort. it's a hill resort. people go and stay there in hotels. it's absolutely open. anyone going to the mountains in northern areas goes through abbottabad. all civilians and military is mixed. the garrisons, the training centers are open for people to go and come, use their messes, it's open. so, therefore, it's not a garrison, a walled place or a fenced place that we are talking of. so, therefore, it was not complicity. it is a terrible case of negligence, which must be explained by pakistan. but it's the onus of explanation to the world, to the united states, lies with pakistan. why was there such serious negligence? but we must not believe that it was complicity because that would be very serious. that means maybe we are not together in the war against terror.

>> so, because we're out of time, let me explain that president musharraf is under an arrest warrant in pakistan, but intends to go back to pakistan in march of 2012 and intends to win the presidential election in 2013. i will be returning to my office where i'll be very, very busy with important things, and when we see you next you'll have lived another adventure. thank you so much for coming. >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. [applause] >> also at the washington ideas form, house speaker john boehner. he said president obama has given up on the country to campaign. the speaker made these comments at the forum hosted by "the atlantic" this is about 20 minutes.

>> you are on the wrong side. >> speaker, what ever you say. just following directions. mr. speaker, welcome. by happy coincidence, the president is going to have a press conference in about 10 minutes. i have some vague familiarity with the cable news industry. i'm going to give the opportunity to look in the cameras and ask the president a question might be translated a press conference 10 minutes hands. >> mr. president, why have you given up on the country and decided to campaign full-time instead of doing what the american people sent us all here today -- to do, to find common ground to deal with the big challenges that face our economy and country. >> there you go. cable news, have that. [laughter] >> what a great way to get started. >> the vice-president was just on the stage and a moment ago, he said roughly the following -- that there was a rough agreement

between yourself, yourselfcantor and the vice-president of the debt ceiling. but for the inability of either to get yourcantor fellow republicans together, he said that is preventing the deal. which like to address that assessment from the vice- president? >> i sure would. >> i thought you might. >> i talked to the president about the need to do what i call the big deal. i thought it was critically important for our country to deal with the debt problem we have and the best way to get there would have been 40 and i to come to some agreement. i can tell you i put every ounce of effort i can and could into trying to come to some agreement. the president said he needed revenues. i told president i was 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 our debt. i put revenues on the table, even though the president never, not one time, ever said yes to any meaningful reform of our entitlement programs. when the president called me and asked for $400 billion more revenue before he ever agreed to any changes in the entire what programs is when i decided we were never going to get there. you could never get the president to the point where he would say yes to real changes in our entitlement programs. i had myself out as far on a limb as far as i could possibly walked trying to come to some agreement, but it takes to to tango and the president would never say yes.

>> let's look at the legislative record for your first year in congress. you've had the votes were your own republicans have to fight your request to vote with them. that indicates to the white house and the larger audience that there are times on significant votes were you need house democrats to support your you cannot keep your own side together. does this not we get your hand legislatively and in high-stakes negotiations with the white house? >> there's no question that it does. i made it clear to my colleagues one item have 218 frogs and a wheelbarrow at one time i don't have the strongest hand i can have. but when you look get my colleagues, and these are not freshmen members by a large companies are more senior members, i think it's a story that has been misunderstood most of the year. some of our members just one more. i want more -- >> want more what? >> the walmart change in the

wanted faster. i don't disagree with them. but when you have said that control by the democrats and democrats and the white house, my job is to move the ball down the field, get things done on behalf of the american people, and i tried to get as much as i can, but i want to be able to move the ball down the field on behalf of the american people. >> getting things done and moving the ball down the field -- will you correlate those desires with what is a historic low opinion of congressional performance this year. the lowest ratings -- you and i have known each other a long time. i've been around capitol hill since 1990 and i never seen a consistent disparity of 70% of disapproval. how much of that is your fault and how much of that is the fault of being unable to get things done and move the ball on the field? >> the congress has been the united states'favorite whipping boy for 200 years.

>> not to this magnitude. >> the american people are concerned about our country. the concern i've seen over the last year is turning to what i would describe as the year. when they watch washington, they do not see the kind of answers they expect. we've got a unique system. right now, we've got divided government. when we are having principled arguments in opposition with each other, the american people don't like to watch it, a bill like to see it. i understand that. but our job every day is to listen to the american people, to express their will, as we try to address the big challenges that face our country. >> you helped create the super committee. what should the public expect out of the super committee? do you have any sense it will not make its stated goal of putting a proposal before congress by november 23rd and it

might fetch its way >> well, based on my experience with the president and my long conversations with the president and the vice president over the course of this year, i believe that the congress and the administration -- our government has to act. we've got a big deficit problem. we've got a big debt problem. the problems in europe continue to loom. their -- their problems are larger than ours. and it's incumbent upon us to show the american people that we can do the right thing. and, frankly, i think it's also incumbent upon us to show the rest of the world that they can address their big challenges as well. and so as a result i am firmly committed to ensuring that the so-called super committee come to an outcome and a successful outcome. >> that will include some form of tax revenue? >> i'd -- i'm not gonna predict what they will or won't do but there has to be an outcome. the reason that the... >> does your willingness in the conversations with the

president to entertain increases in revenue send a signal that you would like the super committee to hear and act upon? >> i made it clear to the republican members of the super committee that i expect there will be an outcome; that there has to be an outcome. the sequester that was built behind this is ugly. and it was meant to be ugly so that no one would go there. i don't underestimate how hard it's going to be to come to an agreement by the so-called super committee but we have to get to one. we cannot let these challenges continue to -- you just can't keep kicking the can down the road. and it's happened here in washington for far too long. >> let me ask you about an issue that's very live in the senate today and could be live in your chamber in the very near future. there's a currency bill on the floor of the senate. it had a 79-19 motion to proceed vote. there's 61 co-sponsors of identical legislation in the

house. allen west, yesterday, said you ought to bring it to the floor. rob portman, from ohio, senator who you know very well is supportive of this legislation. you are not. why are you not supportive? why is it dangerous? and are you gonna reassess your assessment of that if it passes the senate? >> well, there's been concern from -- on my part and, frankly, from a lot of quarters here in america about how the chinese have manipulated their currency. there's been every effort that you can imagine out of our treasury department over the last seven or eight years addressing this with the chinese. there's been a significant improvement in -- in the valuation of china's currency as a result of those conversations. but for the congress of the united states to pass legislation to force the chinese to do what is arguably very difficult to do, i think is wrong.

it's dangerous. you could start a trade war. and a trade war, given the economic uncertainty here and all around the world is -- is -- it's just very dangerous and we should not be engaged in this. and i've made it clear where my position is. i frankly think that the president agrees with me. but why isn't the president speaking up? is he too busy campaigning? why isn't he out there making it clear that this is ill conceived? i believe that he agrees with me but he won't say it. >> to your point about exports and imports, if charles schumer were here, and i don't want to speak for him, he would say, look, we send about $100 billion of imports. china sends anywhere from $300- $325 billion in exports to us. they're not gonna engage in a trade war because it would harm them economically. charles schumer describes, as does lindsey graham and other members of the republican party, china as a currency bully. is it not?

>> they -- they -- they have a lot of challenges in china. i've always believed an engagement with them was the right thing for our country and the right thing for the world. building a commercial relationship between the -- the chinese and the united states is in both of our interest. should be aware that they're probably the largest buyer of united states agricultural products. there -- there's -- there's a -- there is a balance here that i think for the long-term good of our country and for the future, for our kids and grandkids, maintaining this solid relationship is good. but any relationship is not gonna be perfect. and there would be -- you can find a lot of imperfections in -- in this relationship. the administration continues -- needs to continue to work with the chinese to get their -- their valuation of their currency correct.

but this is not, in my opinion, an appropriate role for the congress of the united states. >> you mentioned campaigning. i'd like to know if -- to what degree you were either relieved or alarmed that sarah palin is not running for president? [laughter] >> i like sarah palin. i know sarah palin. spent a couple of days in alaska with her before she ended up in this odyssey of the last few years and i think she made the -- the right decision for herself. i think she can play a role in -- in the upcoming elections and i wish her well. >> do you want her on the campaign trail with house republicans who are either seeking seats they don't currently possess or ones they're trying -- trying to defend? >> i think it'd be very helpful. >> you mentioned the president is spending, you suggested, an inordinate amount of time campaigning. are you saying that is complicating your efforts to achieve results for the american people?

>> well, major, let me put it this way. i, you know, i've had my share of disappointments this year. disappointed that the president and i couldn't come to an agreement on the big deal, disappointed that we couldn't pass some stronger legislation in the house from some of my own colleagues. but i -- i -- nothing has disappointed me more than what's happened over the last five weeks. to watch the president of the united states give up on governing, give up on leading and spend full time campaigning. i mean, we're on the hill legislating. we've moved dozens of bills over to the united states senate that are just sitting there that would help create jobs in america. no leadership from the president and i can't tell you how dangerous our situation, howeconomy's in and -- and

dangerous the situation in europe is. and yet the president, some 14 months before the election, throws in the towel and decides he's gonna spend all of his time out campaigning. we're legislating. he's campaigning. it's -- it's very disappointing. >> the vice president, a few moments ago, said he believes you're a partner of his and the president's. if i hear you correctly, you are declaring, here and now, the president is no longer a partner of yours. >> i'll sit down with the president on any day, at any time, which i already have all year, but i'll continue to do that to seek common ground. yes, we have different ideas about what the appropriate role of the federal government should be in our country and in our society, in our economy. but just because we have very different views doesn't mean that we shouldn't be seeking to find, all right, where's the common ground? where's what we can agree on? you know he sent his jobs bill up.

and mr. cantor and i sent him a letter back last week outlining areas where we thought we could find common ground, whether it be the free trade proposals, whether it be the infrastructure ideas and a -- and a long-term highway bill, whether it be on one of the tax credits that he outlined. so there -- but -- but that's our job. our job is to find common ground to help our country. and while the american people know that we're not always going to agree, they do expect that we're gonna get something done. but it takes two to tango. and all year, you know, i've -- i've reached out to the president, reached out to the president, but you have to have a willing partner. i mean, all year i've asked the president, send the trade agreements up. send the trade agreements up. and here we are on the eve of the -- of the visit by the president of south korea and -- and -- and we're gonna have to

move these trade bills with expeditious speed in -- in order to maintain our very good relationship with a very good ally. >> two national security questions: as the country is approaching the 10th anniversary of the war in afghanistan, the country is, to put it mildly, conflicted about that ongoing war. what has it achieved? how much longer should it continue? and secondarily, related to the war on terrorism, has president obama been as effective, more effective, or equally effective as president bush? >> i think if you've watched over the course of the last three years, i've been very supportive of the president's decisions in iraq and afghanistan. when i -- when there are questions or concerns i'll -- i'll raise them forthrightly. but by and large, the president has continued the effort to take on the taliban, to take on al- qaeda and -- and to help ensure that america stays secure. listen, i think our number one responsibility, as a federal government, is to ensure the safety and security of the american people. i think that making sure in afghanistan that -- that the enemy doesn't have safe ground

in which to plan, train and execute attacks on americans here and abroad is -- is the goal. there -- we need to have success there. and i think so far the president's done -- done just fine. >> there would be those who support the president who would say osama bin laden, anwar al- awlaki, other drone strikes successful in pakistan and elsewhere, have made him a more effective prosecutor of the war on terror than president bush. would you disagree? >> i think that when you look at the prosecution of the war effort against the enemy in the tribal areas, there's clearly more been done under president obama than it was under president bush, in terms of a more aggressive effort focused at them. >> mr. speaker, this is an ideas forum. i want to broaden the

conversation before we end. we have about two-and-a-half more minutes. america lost one of its great innovative minds last night, steve jobs. he had a career that was innovative in the early stages of it. then he was fired, sort of sidelined in his company. then he came back. not to put too fine a point on it, sir, that is in some ways consistent with your trajectory here in washington. [laughter] >> i'm starting to get the gist of the question there. [laughter] >> broadly speaking, mr. speaker, what has steve jobs taught you, taught america about the power of innovation? and will you ever or have you ever worn blue jeans and a mock turtleneck in public? [laughter] >> well, that would probably be no and no. listen, we live in the greatest country in the world. and our forefathers gave us an economic system that produced opportunities for our citizens unlike any other 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 don't believe that the opportunities that we had, all of us in this room had, are gonna be available to our kids and grandkids because we're -- we're -- we're killing the goose that laid the golden egg. it's america's free enterprise system, it's america's openness, it's american's diversity that has allowed us the -- the opportunities to succeed and, frankly, the opportunity to fail. you can't have one or the other. you're always gonna have both. and i just think that government's gotten too big. it's gotten way too involved in our society. it's become way too expensive. and 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 the glass half full. i'm the optimist. hell, if i wasn't i sure wouldn't be here.

and -- and i want all americans to believe and understand that they can do whatever they want to do. they can -- they can succeed. they can -- they can innovate. this is -- this is america. and i go to -- i used to go to a lot of schools. i don't go to as many of them anymore because i -- i ended up in too many poor schools with great kids. most of them will never have a chance because they're in a rotten school. and i get a little worked up over it, as you all know. but, you know, my mission -- my message to all of these kids in these schools is, listen, you grow up and be whatever you want to be. and i think that, you know, most of us have to work for a living. life -- work becomes life's central activity so go do something you like. go succeed at something that you want to succeed at, regardless of what it is. >> mr. speaker, on behalf the

atlantic, the newseum, and the washington ideas forum, thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. [applause] >> this afternoon, we will go live to new hampshire as for massachusetts governor and republican presidential candidate mitt romney will hold a town hall meeting. former senator judd gregg will endorse mr. romney for president today and he will be with the candidate. live coverage begins at 5:30 eastern. the major republican candidates will be at dartmouth college to more for a debate on the economy. c-span.org will have live coverage after the debate where the candidates and advisers speak to their reporters about how they did. congress returns to session tomorrow. the house considers trade deals with panama, colombia, and south korea.

the senate continues debate on sanctions over china's currency manipulations. house coverage here on c-span. the senate is on c-span2. >> c-span radio is another way to keep up with politics and public affairs. exclusives like the rear of the sunday news program from the major networks. if you are in washington, d.c., listen to us on 90.1 fm. c-span radio, another public service created by the nation's cable television industry. now in our 15th year. >> carlyle group co-founder david rubenstein offered his thoughts at the washington ideas forum. the carlyle group is a money

managing firm here in washington. it employs 900 people. mr. rubenstein's comments, followed by discussions, last about two hours. >> we are absolutely delighted to host this forum. it has been a very productive forum for the past two years and continues to be so this year. we are most pleased to host it in the context of civil discourse, and that is one of the goals we have here at the

freedom forum and newseum, to encourage and foster and va home for such civil discourse. so it is faced particular pleasure for us to partner with the atlantic and aspen institute in is very valuable conversations we have been having over the past two years and again in this third year of his existence. i purchase a bit recently last week in a conference with regard to civil discourse and we had a distinguished group of people gathered, including katie couric, who will be here later this morning. it was an encouraging discussion about how we might foster civil discourse in the country. this is certainly an exercise in that. we saw it on display yesterday. it was thought-provoking and robust, but civilized. that is all to the better.

there were some comments made that i took particular note of. when secretary daly was being interviewed and was questioned about job security, generally he said i think every president and ceo should be concerned about their job. i have been on the job two weeks. that was not particularly comforting to hear. what had i done? i know the secretary was referring to the economic climate that exists and we are all pulling for us to pull out of that. the climate here today will be warm and sunny and civilized. we look forward to another great program and another great day of interviews and discussions. we welcome you here today on behalf of the museum. >> on behalf of "in the atlantic, and i also want to mention our partners, and the aspen institute, i am the editor

of the atlantic. we have a great team of people working behind the scenes to help some of you here with us come and as well, we have more people watching on c-span, streaming live, engaging people in the conversation. we pride ourselves on the idea of consequence. you have seen not only in the action packed lineup we have ready for you today, we have had a number of side meetings with prominent incumbent legislators, former administrators, policy practitioners, people from the media, academia, who have been working and struggling and rustling through some of the issues related to meet challenges the u.s. is facing, ranging from health care to education, technology questions, how you reinvent this country. before making comments today, last year, next year, we're

always talking about the field of consequence. i do feel there is something different about the period we're in now, where there is a lot of concern, some self doubt, -- per res musharraf is speaking today. of course, former president cheney. vice-president biden. we are going to hear from the ceo of starbucks howard schultz. when you go around the world, it is important in this is not just about washington, but about how people look at us. one of the biggest security issues we face is many folks around the world do not think america can achieve the things that it sets out for itself. that is an interesting challenge. some of that, we will be working through today. jim has been assisting in so

much of this. i also want to say they need to antonin scalia, who will be fascinating. on behalf of the atlantic, and want to thank all of you for being here. i am glad that you all have seats now. thank you for joining us. i will not turn over the rest of the program. we have howard schultz, the ceo of starbucks, and chris wallace. [applause] >> good morning. i am delighted to do this. howard, let's start with the terrible news overnight about steve jobs. i know that you knew him personally. briefly, your thoughts about him and his passing? >> america, and the world, lost a genius, someone that has to find entrepreneurialism, innovation, courage, leadership. i think we're going to look back

on his life and realize what he contributed to the world society was breathtaking and as innovative as anyone in the last 100 years. >> a tremendous loss for the world. >> you announced a new program just this week. create jobs for usa. starbucks donated $5 million. people can go to starbucks and donate money. all the money goes to community lenders to make loans to small businesses. some people are calling in the starbucks stimulus. why did you come up with the idea and what can you hope it it can accomplish? >> as a look of the landscape of american business, the issues of unemployment, we have a crisis of confidence that is certainly as tough for the unemployed and small businesses as any other time in my generation, looking for opportunities where

starbucks can use its scale for good. we hope to raise millions of dollars to give to community- based organizations. the number one issue facing the small business and the unemployed is access to credit, which is a tragic situation when you consider how much money the banks are sitting on. >> there was a 7-1 leverage here that for every $5 that goes to these communities, they can loan out $35. given that ratio, what do you hope, what do you think can be accomplished in terms of job creation and community development? >> 70 million people a week visit starbucks retail stores. we will sell millions of bracelets. it is about americans helping americans. overnight, this can be a catalyst for significant job creation. if you look at the issues we're facing, small business has been the engine of job creation. small businesses are struggling

because they cannot get credit. this would be a significant change. >> this idea seemed to come organically out of your discouragement with this town -- >> no one in this room, though. >> your growing sense that the big divide in the country is not between business and workers, or any of the other normal and old divisions in the country, but between washington and the rest of the country. what is going wrong? >> following the debt ceiling debacle, what we saw in america -- i think the s&p downgraded america that not only for the balance sheet but because of the dysfunction in washington. right now in america, if you just ask a rhetorical question, is this the best we can do, do

we deserve better? there is an overriding concern that i have shared with many -- business people that washington is not working. what i'm saying is we cannot wait for washington any longer. businesses will have to step up and do everything we can. i am also asking washington to recognize, please put your feet in the issues of american people. stop looking at the lens of ideology and reelection. we do not have 14 months to wait for these problems to be solved. i no longer think this is a crisis. we are in an emergency. >> you were asked, you came on with this idea in august to send out your letter, and it has gotten a huge response from businessmen and regular folks around the country. you were asked, what is the solution? he said, and not an economist, i sell coffee. but it is not just ideology.

there is a basic philosophical disagreement here. one side believes in the role of government, in creating jobs and targeting tax incentives, stimulus, cuts, another side that the government exactly the problem. union less regulation and spending, lower taxes. i do not think people here are doing and just to look at the next election but because they really disagree about what is the target -- best direction for the country. >> i am not naive enough to think that we do not have differences on both sides of the aisle, but this is nothing new. what is new is the polarization and ideology has gone so wrong, people are not willing to understand the differences have become the reason for existence. in the meantime, 9.1 percent unemployment, 42 states are facing budget crises. cuts in social services are going to come to america.

it is going to widen the gap between the haves and have-nots. i recognize the differences but we need cooperation. we need compromise. for god's sakes, the people who do not have a job, the people that cannot make their house payment, do not care about your ideology. if this was a business and like- minded people were in the room to solve problems, problems would have been solved. we started with steve jobs. at his core, he was a meter that understood be are in business to solve problems and create opportunities. solve the problem. >> i just want to pursue this a little bit. i was thinking, in terms of your company, i am sure there have been insoluble problems and you have sat there and said, we are going to sell this product, not this product, we are going to open up this type of store.

if somebody said that we need to get more involved and others say that we do not, isn't the divide so great -- basically, the people in washington are saying, but the people speak. i understand, 14 months is not something we have to wait. >> not when people's lives are at stake. i brought something up on national tv on sunday, and in the mid-1940s pause when the marshall plan was created, ask yourself, is there any way possible in the congressional agenda today, anything close to the marshall plan, could even possibly get through a committee or anything quite like that? i would suggest the domestic agenda and the problems and issues that have to be solved are at least as great as what the marshall plan presented in the mid 1940's. we need a domestic agenda, a laser focus with a comprehensive commitment that we will solve the problem.

the concern and frustration i have is we have a crisis of leadership and confidence in congress, and nothing is getting done. in demint time -- meantime, we are drifting toward mediocrity. >> what do you think is the problem? is it just that we have small people in washington, whether it is on one side of pennsylvania avenue or another? what is the problem? in the past, we have been able to step up and saw those issues. >> ideology and the season of re-election is the most powerful lens through which people see every issue. that is a sea change. that is different from any other time i can remember. george will said something i could not believe. if 80% of the people in this country believe we are going in in the wrong direction, we are wrong. they are working. is he insane, is he in a coma?

when is he looking at? we have stores in every community in america. i was in harlem this week walking the streets. he needs to take a walk around the block and understand. people are being left behind like no other time. it is the fracturing of humanity in this country that is at stake. >> what do you make of these occupy wall street and the growing protests around the country? particularly, given the fact, when they are asked, when do you want? they do not have an answer. >> what we are seeing on the brooklyn bridge the past few days -- i was in new york -- you are seeing the beginning of the anchor of, -- anger, frustration, which could have consequences that we do not expect an america. is this what is going to take

to address these problems? people are very concerned. >> you feel so strongly about this you started a campaign over the summer to boycott political contributions to anyone running for president, congress this year until washington gets serious about job creation and about long-term debt stimulus. what is going on with that? >> we have 150 ceo's and business leaders signing up, and when we started doing the research, we found of $4 billion was spent in 2008, $5.5 billion in 2007 under the presidential cycle. that is unbelievable to me. we need to send a message that we do not want to embrace the status quo. but beyond that, i am asking businesses and corporations, let us not wait for washington.

we have a responsibility. i want people to reinvest in america. demonstrate we can achieve and level of confidence that i hope is contagious. >> i know you were challenged about this on sunday. the argument is, they are not all the same. there are some politicians who seem to be thinking about their next election, and then there are some like lamar alexander, who quit the leadership because he was so frustrated with the grid lock. carly fiorina, the former head of hewlett-packard, said that job creators at this time need to be more involved than ever in the political process, not to drop out. >> i do not agree with the suspension in raising money for incumbents has anything to do with some of those people that care a great deal. what i'm saying is, i do not want to support the status quo,

andúi do not want to feed the beast. the beast is re-election. this is about sending a signal that we are not touched on with the work you are doing. we want you to go back to work. this is not a time to take a day off. this is an emergency and we need you to go back to work. we pivoted off the money issue and have gone to job creation. as a result, we are trying to do everything we can to stimulate job creation p.w. supported barack obama in 20008. are you -- 2008. are you disappointed with his inability to be a transformative candidate? are you disappointed in his ability to bring the country together? >> i am disappointed in washington, the congressional agenda, leaders in washington. i am not here to criticize the

president or one party or another. i am disappointed in the lack of leadership and commitment to solve problems. >> use a business has got to get things going on its own. let me pose some suggestions. why isn't business hiring right now? why is it not holding on? they have said there is not enough demand, there is not enough certainty. there are too many uncertainties with regulations and taxes and health care. why isn't business hiring? >> first of all, you cannot put business in one pocket. if i were to answer that specifically, the idea of uncertainty needs to be understood. most public companies, as a result of the financial crisis, took out administrative costs.

they fired some people and navigated the financial crisis. they learned how to be leaner. a new muscle memory was built in new companies, and as a result, companies are more profitable, and they did then rehire those people. but the issue of uncertainty is real. the budget crisis, unemployment, regulation, housing, business people, not unlike politicians, are going to go where momentum is. right now, the head winds are so strong, people are not willing to take risks. what i'm trying to say, and many agree with me, we can be a signal to american businesses that this is a time to reinvest in the country and demonstrate leadership. >> i want to talk about health care. for those of you may not know, you were somebody who decided

way before most companies, to provide full health care for part-time workers, people working as few as 20 hours a week. 250,000 people. >> we provide health care to 130,000 people at a cost of $260 million a year. >> you are saying this individual mandate, as written, would be a drag on small businesses, if it goes into effect as planned in 2014. >> you have really done your homework. >> we do that on fox. >> i would not know. i have never been on. >> that is not true. >> we will not know what the final bill is in 2014. as currently written, i do not believe the issue of a mandate is something that would be good for small businesses. i predict that issue will be refined before 2014.

>> meaning? >> what a mandate means is you have to provide health care. even if a young person is provided health care from their parents -- that is probably not a good policy. i suspect it will be refined. >> i learned some astonishing facts about starbucks in preparing for this interview. 17,000 stores in 55 countries. $11 billion last year in sales. 60 million customers a week. 11 million cups of coffee a day. not drink one of them? >> i drink tea. >> you step back, you were the chairman, not the ceo. the company probably expanded too big. the stock dropped 42%, and you

came back in. i thought of this question before last night. kind of like steve jobs did with apple. what went wrong with starbucks, why does a company sometimes lose the vision of its founder, and why does the founder some time to come into ride to the rescue? >> in many ways, starbucks did something that is not unusual, but it hurt us. the growth and unbelievable success of the company covered up a lot of mistakes. we lost focus of our core purpose and the customer. when i came back, we transformed the company. ironically, one of the first people i called when i come back -- when i came back was steve. obviously, he had done such an extraordinary job when he came back. i had a sense of the core values and knew where things were very to make the changes necessary. most importantly, the guiding

principles and the culture of the company, demonstrated over 40 years, you can build profits and shareholder value. >> when you talk about core values, a lot of people would say, a company that sells good coffee, could tea. how do you lose your core values? >> you lose your core values by one they realizing that your stock price or demand and expectations of wall street is a reason for being. that can happen very easily when the world shares with you how great you are, keeps trumping the stock price, people late -- make a lot of money, but then you realize, this is not what we are about. we are about serving and exceeding expectations of our customer. the stock prices and p/e became

an albatross of a round the company's net. since returning, i have been tried to do everything i can to give the company back that sense. >> in in a real experience of me going into a starbucks, how have you lost touch of giving value? >> when companies go the wrong way, they start measuring and rewarding the wrong things. what we want to measure and record is the experience the customer has. we started to measure speed of service, transactions per hour. in a sense, the operational expectations of the company trumped the company experience. if that happens at 17,000 stores, the company gets turned upside down. thankfully, the equity and business was strong enough where we were able to rebuild the company. probably stronger than we have ever been. >> you grew up in a brooklyn

housing project. your dad worked one blue-collar job after another, had a hard time. how did that experience shape you? what are the personal traits that took you from humble beginnings to this extraordinary success? >> i am a poster child, in so many ways, for the american dream. i was in harlem on sunday. i see tragic situations on the street. i talk to people and realize, rhetorically, the question is, did they have the same access to the possibilities i had? in answer is probably not. the experience i had as a young boy inspired me to try to build a company that my father and then it -- never got a chance to work for, and that is why i have health care -- why we have health care. this concern i am talking about, the french turn of the american dream, whether america is at its

best today. i do not think it is. as a result of my childhood, the imprinting i had, i want to make sure that america is the place where a kid can still do anything in the world. i wonder if that is still true. >> i am always fascinated by people like you. what did you have that other people do not? yes, you have flaws, but what was the personal traits that allow you to create this extraordinary company? >> my mother, who was an uneducated woman, from the time i could remember, demanded, insisted, that all three of her kids went to college. we did not have the resources but all three kids went to college. that was her life ambition. if i took you through the

projects today, the chances of getting from there to here are insurmountable, in the way, but in a country like america, it is possible. i asked the question again, it is it possible today? i think of are more difficult today. >> where did you get this burning social conscience? >> i saw a lot of bad things as a kid. i remember people telling me as a kid, do not dream too big because you will be disappointed. people try to define our station in life. my mother did not allow that to happen. i want to carry that out as much as i can for the people being left behind. one of the things i am concerned about now is 42 states in america are facing a budget deficit. as a result, cuts on social services in america will be more acute than any time in our

lifetime, and there will be tremendous -- the amount of people that will be crushed as a result of the service -- social services, is troubling to me. >> how long the use sleep a night? >> five, six hours. i sleep well. >> i had heard three, four hours. >> chris, did you read everything about me? i do not sleep very much. i have never been a big sleeper. >> you do not need it? >> i drink a lot of coffee. [laughter] >> that was my punch line. howard schultz. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> i hope you have all had your crop in this morning. next, david rubenstein. you may know, he was in the carter white house many years ago. i was in law school. we all knew that david would sunday -- that we would all some day be working for david. he is a great speaker, on many documents, and today will tell us one that we are not aware as others. >> thank you. many of you will hear a lot of speeches. yesterday, today, about the economy, and that is a subject upon which i often talk because i'm in investment business, but i am interested american history. i came to the white house and learn more about american history as a result of that. more recently, have gone into the habit of buying american

documents and getting them displayed and having them out so that the public can learn about them. what i would like to talk about today is a subject that i think i can encapsulate in 20 minutes, but i hope it will inspire a to think about these subjects later today and subsequently. the subject is this. today, of course, think about a resolution -- revolutionary steve jobs and what he did in terms of changing the world of computers and electronics, the way we live. there is another revolutionary i would like to mention, market in luther king. in 10 days, we are going to dedicate a memorial to martin luther king. it is about 1 mile away from here as well that he gave the i have a dream speech, which became one of the most famous speeches in american history. what is in that speech and what led to the speech i think people have forgotten. i would like to tell you a little bit about that speech.

while i was alive when the speech was given, i was not aware of the importance of how to give that speech. as we get ready to think more about martin luther king in 10 days, that speech was given 48 years ago, is one that i think bears some rethinking. first, let me put it in some context. in my own view, there are two great speeches i have seen as the gold standard. one was the gettysburg address, given by abraham lincoln in 1963, and the john f. kennedy inaugural address given in 1961. i got to know a little bit about that inaugural address. those two speeches were terrific because they were both short, and they're both not specific. neither speech said that the speaker was going to do any particular thing. neither talk about legislation. they had some good mnemonic devices that allow them to be remembered. the words were almost poetry in

the way that they were written. there were also speeches that did not have an immediate impact but were remembered for much longer and stood the test of time. in many ways, the martin luther king's speech was similar. given on august 28, 1963, it was like the kennedy speech and the gettysburg address, very short. the gettysburg address was only two minutes in length. the kennedy inaugural speech was 14 minutes. martin luther king's speech was seven minutes. about 31 minutes. think about it. you listen to a state of the union for 45 minutes and you think, what have you remember? the martin luther king's speech is similar to the other speech. when martin luther king was trapped in that speech, he said he wanted it to be similar to the gettysburg address, the same kind of inspiration. so how is that speech similar?

it was short. it did not have any specific legislation. it had a certain eloquence to it. it also had a mnemonic device that was similar to what was used in the gettysburg address and kennedy inaugural. in the speech by lincoln, he used in the modern device that was helpful. it is called by gary wills in his pulitzer prize-winning book cooking. he would use a word repeatedly. fourscore and seven years ago, our products but for this country a new nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. he would use the word dedicated over and over again. if you go through day address, dedicated is in almost every other sentence. other words that were used like that repeatedly, and that brought the whole speech together. in the kennedy inaugural address, he used another device called antithesis. it did not intend to do it.

antithesis is a device were you contrast things, and contrast helps the listener remember. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. those kinds of contrasting things are run the kennedy inaugural address. 52 sentences, 23 have antithesis. in the martin luther king's speech, the mnemonic device uses is something called an for a period that is a speechwriting device sets up a predicate and keeps repeating it. i have a dream. any talks about what the dream is. let freedom ring, and then talk about what freedom rings means in this context. he used this device to help make the speech work. but there is one major contrast -- two major contrasts between the kennedy address and lincoln

address and martin luther king's address. the other two were given by presidents, public officials. the speech by martin luther king was given by a private citizen. normally, great speeches are usually given by public officials in great public settings. this was a great public setting that lincoln spoke at, dedication of a ceremony -- cemetery. there is one other great difference between these two speeches are referred to and the martin luther king's speech, probably the most impressive thing about it. the kennedy speech was carefully crafted by ted sorensen and john kennedy. there were collaborative lead over three weeks. the same is true for the gettysburg address. it was written by linking

almost entirely by himself. he drafted it before he went to gettysburg. it was a speech from which she read. john kennedy read from the speech that he crafted. in the case of martin luther king, he crafted a speech. he worked on it for four days, and spent all night the night before working on it. it was typed on for reporters and people have a copy of it. halfway through, he departed, and the par that you remember, i have a dream, had nothing to do with the text. it was totally off the top of his head. standing in front of 250,000 people, how could somebody have the courage to say, i would just win it. i will make something out. how does that happen? how did that come about? at the time that the march was conceived, it was not considered to be such a wonderful idea by

people in the u.s. martin luther king was a young preacher in montgomery. he had not been active in civil- rights, had been asked to head the naacp chapter. he turned it down because he wanted to dedicate himself to preaching. then when the bus boycott occurred and rosa parks and others led the boycott, he got involved and more involved in support rights. the civil-rights efforts that he led were successful in certain areas, but at a time of the march in 1963, we were still a very segregated country. although brown versus board of education changed the way schools operated, in alabama, mississippi, south carolina, not a single black child went to an integrated school in alabama, mississippi, are alabama in 1963. white unemployment was half of

what black unemployment was. blacks made on average 50% of what whites made in income. only 8% of blacks in the south were registered to vote. it was a much different country than the country we live in today. while we have many problems to deal with today in this area, it was a different situation. martin luther king thought that he needed to do more than what was being done and was looking for ways to do it. other civil-rights leaders can see the idea of having a march in washington. it was not mainly his idea. it was vacancies by philip randolph. six major organizations at the time came together. the idea of having a march in washington was threatening to the president. he did not know what would come to it. but some people thought there would be violence. president kennedy did meet with civil rights leaders and persuaded them not to do it. he did not succeed and the march

went forward. it was meant to be in october but it was decided to be done in august. the u.s. government was more involved than you normally have in a march. the u.s. government helped facilitate the operation. the government paid for many things. the government was involved in one of the speeches. one of the speeches to be given by john lewis was edited by people in the government because some of what he said they thought was too incendiary. as that march was being put together, many were not sure if it would lead to violence, if anyone would show up. as it turned out, 250,000 people showed up. it was very peaceful. in fact, that was the main story. if you look at the newspapers the next day, it was not about the speech, it was that it was

such a peaceful demonstration. six major civil rights organizations, and they talk amongst themselves about how the speakers would speak that day. it was decided that each speaker would be given five minutes. martin luther king wanted to speak for five minutes -- wanted to speak longer, but he decided that he would speak five minutes. some people said that he should be at the end because he was so eloquent. some were warning him that perhaps there would not be anybody there anymore. in martin luther king's case, it was recognized he was more articulate, but many people in the white world had not heard him speak before. when the speeches were being given that day, many of them were ok, they were nice. not very memorable. the more memorable one was john lewis. he later became the head of the nonviolent coordinating

commission. he gave a speech that did not quite call for violence or anything like that, but it was a bit more incendiary than some of the organizers wanted. towards the end of the day, martin luther king got up to speak. he was supposed to speak for five minutes, but he realized at the end of the day, he could speak longer, and he intended to do so. it was a speech that really, at the beginning, parts of it would not change the way that people looked at history. he gave fairly standard kinds of civil rights language, the same kind of thing that president kennedy and other civil-rights leaders have said before. we had the emancipation proclamation and we have not honored that commitment that people made to the country. an effective analogy, a check and had not been cashed. the country owes us. there the standard language.

the analogy of a promissory note was given to him by someone helping him with the speech. then he went into another standard of his speech, which is to say, we should do what we need to do to cash this check to make sure that the government honors this, but in nonviolent. this was not something that everybody completely agreed on. the income tax, for example, -- malcolm x, for example, said that the nonviolent movement had not gone far enough. had he ended the speech there, and would have been nothing of great consequence. and then towards the end he concluded he did not have what he would call a great landing. he decided to take something that he had done before and put it into the speech. how could he have come up with the i have a dream, let freedom ring off the top of his head?

he probably did not. he had come over many years, used the i have a dream-kind of language, and had tried it out a couple of weeks before. not quite something that people had heard outside of the civil rights community. the white community have never heard it, but it was something that he was familiar with. the same thing with let freedom ring. it was in other civil rights speeches that others had given. but why did he depart from this speech? he never gave a good answer to that. he would never interviewed about -- he it was only interviewed about it wants. he said he felt something coming on and he felt like he had to do something more than what was in the prepared text. someone said that there was a singer on stage and behind them, she kept on reminding him, tell them about the dream. it is not clear that he heard

her and that is when he went into his remarks. anyways, those remarks, and i have handed out speech text about it, if you read it, it is very effective. he kept on repeating i have a dream, then talking about what the dream was, and then ending with let freedom ring. and then in the end, saying, hopefully, we will have freedom. free at last, thank god almighty, i am free at last. it was an old negro minstrel song used in cemeteries. president kennedy greeted him and said "i have a dream." when president kennedy listen

to the speech on tv, he said this man is a damned good speaker. president kennedy did not release a to martin luther king, you are now the star of the civil-rights movement. he was careful to say i did not -- not to say i gave the great speech that stole the day. this was one of the most important points. it was not a speech that began that famous waterway. when the civil rights legislation is being debated, martin luther king was still seen as revolutionary, maybe too much revolutionary to be the kind of thing congress was talking about. there is not one mention in any civil rights debate about martin luther king's speech. when he died, television networks and other people wanted to talk more about this great man, and what did they talk about other than something that was then relatively safe?

the civil rights legislation had been passed. he was fighting the war against vietnam, he was fighting against poverty in the north. many of those things did not actually come to pass. when he died and was assassinated, it was not been seen as somebody who was completely safe for americans to talk about, and why everything he had done so wonderful, but the civil rights legislation was seen as safe because it had passed. people to this page in the -- took the speech and began to -- the impact of the speeches is many years later. today is we get ready to celebrate the martin luther king memorial, i think it is instructed to go back and read the text of that speech should be have a chance, because it is wonderful language and it really was an inspiration to the people that heard it. did not have an immediate impact

on passing legislation, but today it ranks as one of the great speeches ever given by any american, a private citizen or public official. as we began to remember what martin luther king stood for, we should also remember that many of the things he worked for really have not come to pass. what we are now almost 50 years later after the speech was given, many of the things he worked for have not come into being. we still have a long way to go before we achieve many of the objectives he talked about in his speech. thank you very much. [applause] >> now we are going to have an interview with katie couric who has come down from new york. as you know, she was the cbs anger, the first woman anger. she is now going on to do other things. katie, are you here?

[applause] >> i hope howard schultz has left the building. >> david is happy because david loves dunkin donuts. the challenge with you is not to be so familiar and treat you like the girl next door. when we are working through the building, everybody thinks they know katie because of the today show. it is like walking through with a candidate who is shaking all hands and they are so anxious to talk to you. andy rooney said the other day upon announcing his retirement, "i am so glad that all of you like me, but please let me have my dinner."

how is it when everybody thinks they know you? >> i would think it is very flattering, and people for the most part are really gracious. so i am grateful. i think that people do know me to a certain extent, because on "the today show" they not only saw me have two kids, my husband and my sister passed away during that time. >> and they did see that colonoscopy. >> they have gotten to know me intimately per my colonoscopy, but i think they see me in serious, fun, and traumatic situations, all kinds of situations. the carrier does not like in a format like that -- the camera does not lie. people say to me all the time, i feel as if i know you. i say well, you probably do if

you watch the today show, particularly. >> you cannot come down for dinner, but we had a large dinner at david bradley's house on tuesday night, and we showed clips of the political humor of the last year. one click was tina fey playing sarah palin. she said we have vanquished one of the world's great villains, and i for one am thrilled to say, good riddance to katie couric. [laughter] she said she is not running. >> i heard that. >> i don't know who vanquished to, but the interview has been compared to roger mudd and ted kennedy in terms of how it changed our politics. you may be best known for it. are you proud of it? was it like serendipity that it became what it did? you did not ask the great

"gotcha" questions. you just asked, what newspapers do you read? >> i spent 45 minutes with governor palin talking about some foreign policy issues after she spent the morning at the united nations, and we talked about nation-building, we talked about iran, we talked about the difference of how a surge might be effective in a rock versus afghanistan. it was at the height -- effective in iraq versus afghanistan. it is funny to me that that one question not so much attention, and i think she was so annoyed with me at that point in time, she just wanted me to be gone. what can i say about that interview? governor palin had not done much press. a decision was made by her campaign that she do major media

ia.lets, the lamestream med shawn hannity from fox did the second, so i was the third to go. i thought it was an opportunity for the american people to learn more about this candidate, about this person, where they stood, where they were philosophically in terms of their politics, what made them tick, with their vision was for the country, and how those views were shaped. when i asked the question about what do you read, i was curious, and it was really just kind of a spontaneous question period in television reject a spontaneous question. i thought, i am interested. she has such strong political

views, and her ideology is so specific, i wanted to know what did she read, what newspapers and magazines did you read on a regular basis that helped shape your world view? because i was curious what made her believe the thing she believes. she later said -- during the interview, she said people in alaska read. i was quite aware that people alaska read. [laughter] i think she was trying to deflect it, and i still to this day don't quite understand why she would not answer that question straight on. i think of a million ways i probably would have answered that about reading every newspaper and alaska, because it is only so critical for me to understand what is going on in my state. i try to get a variety of political viewpoints. i just thought she was just done

with me at that point. >> yesterday a burning question was how women are treated in the white house because of the [unintelligible] i fell asleep last night reading clips from you taking over the cbs news. >> that is a sterling endorsement. thanks, margaret. [laughter] >> actually it upset me because i wondered how did you have all that in coming and then just keep going out there every night? some of it must have been painful. it seems more personal than it would have been about charlie gibson or brian williams or anybody else. did you find it that way? >> oh, yes. it was at times very difficult. it was hard to understand, are to appreciate where it was coming from. i think that women are, let's face it, held to a different

standard still in this country. i think there are more fun to dissect visually, just saying. i think that especially there was so much focus on my taking over at cbs, i think there were a lot of expectations for what one person could do for a news organization, and i think that i had enjoyed considerable success for 15 years on "the today show." that brings a certain level of resentment. i tried not to take it too personally. i think it is sometimes journalists follow a particular narrative. so i just decided, what can i do? i can either pull the covers over my head and cry and decide not to go to work, or i could do what i think i am very good at, being a good journalist and doing good work. i really focused on the news

instead of the noise, and i just kind of forge ahead. at times it was very painful, there is no doubt about it. >> did your daughters know? >> when i cried at the dinner table, they knew. >> i try to be a good example for my daughters. when my husband died, i tried to turn that tragedy into something positive, because i hope -- i think the most important part about being a good parent is providing someone that they can model. it was a time where i could be honest with them about how difficult it was, but also did not want to be a quitter, and i wanted to keep doing the best job i possibly could. i hope that have been able to learn from me gregarious ups and downs that i have experienced. -- from various ups and downs that i have experience.

>> i wanted you being a multimedia conglomerate on your own. as i was reading this, and really touched by this, the hospital, the castro colonoscopy center you couricish, andd the effect. >> after my husband died, i realize i had a chance to educate the public about this killer. president reagan had a polyp removed, and there have been other cases as well, but nothing extremely high profile. obviously the president was, but it was not a serious situation for him. so i decided that i would try to demystify the screening process , which the gold standard is a screening colonoscopy for people 50 and over.

so my executive producer had also ironically had colon cancer at an early age. he was extremely supportive when i went to him and said i want to do something about this. i want to educate the public and let them know. i think colon cancer was one of those cancers that people did not talk about. it was sort of like breast cancer was 20 years ago. so i just took the opportunity and use the bully pulpit that i had to educate americans. as a result, the number of colonoscopy is went up 20%, and the university of michigan did a study and they call that the -- they called it the couric effect. >> i went and had one, not on camera. >> people have now become very comfortable discussing all sorts of things with me. they send the x-rays of their

colons. they tell me about director of bleeding. i am like, "thanks for sharing." i really don't mind, because i think it is important to get it out in the open, to make people comfortable about discussing parts of their body that they -- that we all have. >> i think it is safe to say, noah otheranchor has had such an event -- no other anchor has had such an impact theory few people would be at the height of their profession and walk away and go into terrain where they are not as known as being the anger of cbs news. what prompted you? >> -- the anchor of cbs news. >> i am really proud of the work that i did there, not only the sarah palin interview but other political interviews as well,

covering haiti, covering the arab spring. i had this incredible front row seat to history, which i have been fortunate to occupy for many years. it is such a privilege. for me personally, the evening news was just a bit of a confining john roll. it is 22 minutes. -- a confining genre. i enjoy interacting with people like you, understanding what makes people tick, understanding -- getting to the bottom of someone's political views. i just don't think that format really afforded me the opportunity to do the things i really enjoy. i like to have fun and smile. i think people sort of thought i had a lobotomy when i did the evening news. the news is very serious, obviously, and i am also a very serious person. i care deeply about a lot of

issues, but i think i am little more of multidimensional in terms of what i enjoy. >> this endless list of interviews you have done, you go high and low. you have quite a range. >> high and low, are prefer a serious and fun. it is not so much highbrow and lowbrow, but i certainly enjoy talking -- i did a profile of sarah jessica parker porker " nightline." some people might consider that a flock interview, but i think sarah jessica parker is a person of real substance. she is very thoughtful. she has a very interesting background and upbringing. i really enjoy talking to her. i would enjoy doing something with sarah jessica parker. i enjoy interviewing president obama or john boehner about legislative issues.

i think people want to put you in a box and say this person does that, but when you challenge that and push the envelope and try to get out of the box, i think some people feel uncomfortable with that. >> the network presidents were here yesterday, and they said that network news is stronger than ever and on the rise. but if we took a poll here, i don't know anybody who actually watches the nightly news anymore. >> especially now that i am not doing it, margaret. [laughter] when i got into television, there were not that many options. looking back on my conversation with bryant gumbel about the internet, it has been seen by trillions of people on line about what is the internet? we sounded like such idiots. they are just so many more

options now. as everyone knows, this is not a news flash. >> but your doing all of them. you have your own youtube channel. >> i did that at cbs. i have not really been doing a lot of that. i try to be active on twitter and facebook, and i try to embrace new media. i did a web show when i was with cbs, and i did that to satisfy my desire to have more lengthy conversations and do the kinds of things i really enjoyed doing. i have really embraced new media in a way that i think everyone in traditional media should, but it's not necessarily doing. >> since your everybody's tv star, i thought we would break with what we usually do and have a couple of questions from the audience. does anybody have a question for katie couric? christie. >> christie was chairman of

playboy enterprises. >> i will follow-up on mark critz last question in terms of how people get their news. margaret's last question. >> what is the world in which people can post it permission in a breaking news situation but sometimes completely inaccurate information? i would be interested in your thoughts, if you are thinking about the next generation of journalists, what is going to define them, and how should they studied for the craft? >> i think obviously the definition of a journalist is changing, because anybody with a computer and a point of view can post something. you are right, sometimes it is terribly accurate. we use it for example if there is an earthquake and we don't have access to reporting, or if

there is something going on in iran, we relied on twitter to get information. i think it is getting increasingly difficult to ascertain what is accurate and what is not. but that is why we need editors, and i think it is very challenging. how can you validate things? there is a reason there is a system in place with editors, double sourcing, and all the things that traditional news gathering involves. i guess the question is, new journalists are young journalist, how they deal with that? >> someone is interested in journalism today, how they can learn the craft? >> it obviously have to double check any kind of material that you are validating when you are

a legitimate news organization. you are not going to try something on twitter or facebook or whatever. i still think there is no substitute for being taught by people who are experienced, who have been around the block, and understand the importance of validating material. it is very tough, because things get out fast and furiously on line. it was reported a couple of weeks ago that steve jobs had died by somebody on the internet. there is just the possibility of inaccurate information, much more likely in this day and age. i don't really know how to solve in general, but i do think that consumers have to be more skeptical than ever before and help filter out things for themselves. then i think they should rely only legitimate news organizations to help them understand what is true and what is not. >> following in the footsteps of

chris wallace, how many hours of sleep now that you don't do the today show you take? >> i would like to not answer that question, margaret, and just mention one thing. a don't want you all to think i am unemployed right now. [laughter] i just want to mention that i am working on a very exciting project. >> when you are awake. >> i try to sleep 8-10 hours, but i am not one of these automatons. i do not equate little sleep with success or achievement. i am doing a syndicated talk katie."med "cad we are going to be doing a syndicated talk show in the late

afternoon and it will be on all the abc owned and operated stations and a variety of local stations across the country. i am really excited about it because it is more entrepreneurial and things i have done in the past. it is an opportunity for me to really paint and canvas, talking about issues i care deeply about. given the tsunami of information we are drowning in every day, to have an hour to kind of take a look at a certain subject, whether it is lowering the drinking age on college campuses where binge drinking and accidents are happening way too often, or talking about who are the navy seals, or a whole host of subjects, i think it is going to be an opportunity for people to take a breath and maybe understand the world we live been in a better way that will help them in their daily life. i hope so, anyway. >> i will be tuning in.

you are a serious person, and you don't need a smiley face on the little bought. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> thanks again, katy. that was so much fun. next up we have the director of the newseum, and justice scalia, which is a real treat for me. i actually am a lawyer, so i will pay particular attention to this interview. [applause] >> good morning.

>> good morning to you, too, jim. i know it is a busy time for you at the beginning of the new court term. i will start with a question about the nature of the court system generally in the united states. it was about 175 years ago that the tocqueville observed that there is hardly a political question in the united states which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one. is that a fair observation? is it applicable still today? >> it is a good line. i don't think it is true, and i don't even think todt hill thought it was true because he had -- de tocqueville thought it

was true. even in that time it was a peculiar phenomenon, the degree of power that american courts have. he tried to explain how this was compatible with democracy. one of the reasons he found light was compatible is that there are some controversies that are not -- we have a doctrine of standing, and there are some things that we just will not get to the courts because the courts cannot deal with them. whether there should be federal expenditures for this or that is a political question, but unless you are harmed by the expenditure, and you are not harmed if you are just a taxpayer, because the argument is that would have wasted the money some other way anyhow.

you have no standing to challenge it. it is true that we are probably more litigious than most societies, and we have open court. you can always come in and try, but it is not true that we stick our nose into everything. >> i think that is a fair observation. the courts don't seek out these cases, they come to the courts, but we do find that many political questions and issues ranging from immigration to health care are finding their way into the court system. is that a good thing? does the distinguish us from other forms of government? >> it did up until the end of world war ii. other countries that used to mark our system of judicial review. the british call the government by the judges. they have now adopted our system, and most european constitutions provide for

judicial review of legislative action to comply with human rights guarantees, the equivalent of our bill of rights. so they are sort of in the same suit as we are. adon't think -- if you have constitution that is law, and if the object of course is to apply the law, it follows that the courts have to review the conformity of legislation with what the constitution requires. that is a good thing. it usually is not the entire legislation that is up for grabs. it is whether this particular provision comports with the constitution, or what does this particular provision means? is it proper for the executive to apply it in this fashion? i guess you could call that a political question, whether the

epa can regulate this or that, but it is essentially whether the executive is complying with what the statute provides. and that is good. >> have you seen your experience over the years on the bench a decline in the clarity of statutes that is coming out of congress? has there been a consistency there, or is there a difference in the clarity these days? >> i would rather put it that i have not seen any improvement. [laughter] it has always been a problem, and remains that. people are sometimes surprised at how our case load has gone down over the last decade or so. we are doing a little more than half of the cases that we used to do when i first came on the court, which is not all bad. i think we are doing too many. i don't think we can do 150

well. i think the main reason it went down is not that we decided to take fewer, but that there are fewer major statutes. when i first came on the court, there was a bankruptcy code, there was erisa. you read about the constitutional cases in the newspapers, but most of it is just figuring out what legislation means, and it takes about a decade to get all the kinks out of a new piece of major legislation. so that is what we used to have a lot more cases. >> you have not been a particular fan of looking to legislative history to determine the meaning of the statute. why is that, and is there any conceivable way that legislative history and become more reliable? >> first of all, let's be clear

what you mean by legislative history. i will take account of what you might call statutory history. that is the statute used to read this way. it was amended in 1994 to read this way. and why did they make the change? it seems that they meant something different. i will take account of that. what i will not take account of its statements on the floor, including statements by the bill posey sponsor, committee reports, -- statements by the bill's sponsor. none of that is proper for me to consider because the constitution says that the manner in which legislation is enacted is in has to be approved by both houses of congress and signed by the president or passed by two-thirds over his veto. none of these statements pass

that test. congress cannot delegate to one of its committees the meaning of its statutes. congress says what it says, and my job is to figure out what the meeting of what it inactive is. i frankly do not care what they thought it meant. [laughter] even if you believe that legislative history would tell you what they thought it meant, and it cannot possibly. it can at most tell you what one committee thought, although not even that. the committee reports are never voted on by the committee. they are put together by staff. a committee member cannot object vote.is in a boa the most it can tell you is what that committee thought or one individual member of. the theory is that everybody

heard him say that on the floor and there must have voted with that in mind. but you know that is fictional, if you have ever been on the hill. there was nobody out there when he said that. [laughter] in fact, he might have put it in afterwards and said it was extended remarks or something. it is just a great fiction. its major attraction is, it is so tempting. here is the answer to the very detailed question. here is someone who on the floor of congress says what it meant. how tempting it is to say, let's move on to the next case. but in fact it does not display what the intent of congress was. even if it did, we are a government of laws, not of an expressed intent.

>> how you differentiate between that and looking to the constitution as written and the intent of the framers? you have been critical of the phrase "a living constitution" as recently as yesterday. you expressed the desire to see the concept of a living constitution die. how you differentiate between looking to the intent of the framers as to the meaning of the constitution and the present day? >> i don't look to the intent of the framers. i don't care if they had some secret intent. once again, i look to the words of the constitution. but ask, why did those words mean to the society that adopted them? so i will use the federalist papers, the writings of madison,

but i willnd jay, not use it because they were the drafters of the constitution. those papers to show what those words meant to the society that adopted. that is the same thing i do with legislation. what do those words mean? what is the fair understanding of them? once i find that, that is my answer, and that understanding does not change. for example, whether the death penalty is proscribed by the eighth amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. the death penalty may be a very bad idea, but no american ever voted to adopt a constitutional provision that eliminated it, that eliminated that as an option. the living constitutionalists will say times have changed and

it is up to meet to decide what is cruel and unusual punishment. that is a constitution and has no bite if the constitution means whatever we would like to mean today. why have a constitution? you don't need a constitution for that. all you need is a legislature. they will express the current attitude of society much better than my court will. we don't know what is going on out there. [laughter] >> it is tempting to apply certain clauses of the constitution to new technologies. you have described it as falling to the trajectory of the riding of the constitution. how do you differ -- that from a living constitution, or one that is adaptable -- how do you differentiate that from a living constitution? >> an enduring constitution, which is what i favor, is not

one that cannot be applied to new situations. of course it can. you apply the first amendment to radio, but what you ask is, what did the first amendment mean as applied to these other phenomenon? then you say, what ought it to mean, given that as the baseline, as applied to radio? whereas the living constitutionalist will simply say, you know, what is a good idea today? what would the american people like today? i probably should not use this example in this place, but "new york times" versus sullivan, the famous case that held that you can libel public figures without liability, so long as you are relying on a statement from some reliable source, whether it is true or not. the old libel law used to be,

you are responsible. you say something false that harm somebody's reputation, we don't care if it was told you buy nine bishops, you are liable. "new york times" versus sullivan just cast that aside, because in modern society, -- it may be correct, that may be right, but if it was right, it should have been adopted by the people. it should have been debated in the new york legislature, and the new york legislature could have said yes, we are going to change our libel law. but the living constitutionalists on the supreme court said it used to be that george washington could sue somebody that libeled him, but we don't think that is a good idea anymore. so that is the difference between my approach and a living constitution approach. i will be guided as to what the constitution means today by what it meant when it was adopted.

the living constitutionalist feels free to say it is a new day, and we can have new rules. >> we have heard in this forum -- >> i feel bad about using that example. >> we have heard over the past day and again this morning a phrase that has become popular among political observers in the current political climate that washington has become dysfunctional, and by that i think there are referring is generally to the more political branches, the legislature and executive. in my experience within the judicial branch, i have really never heard the judiciary described as dysfunctional. it works well.

surliest there are an abundance of cases and some courts are very much overworked and we need additional resources from congress in that regard, but there is an underlying stability in the court system -- underlying civility in the court system. do you agree with that observation, and if so, is there anything that can be taken from that by the other branches in perhaps lowering the temperature of the discourse in the country at the moment? >> you mentioned my remarks yesterday. just this writer and i spoke to the senate judiciary committee bryer and i spoke to the senate judiciary committee.

when exactly makes america the freest country in the world? i pointed out that most people think it is the bill of rights. it is not the bill of rights. everybody has a bill of rights and the modern world. that is not what does it. what does it is what i call the real constitution, if you think about the word constitution. it does not mean the bill of rights. instructor. the reason the bill of rights of these other countries -- the soviet union had a wonderful bill of rights. it was worthless, because the real constitution of the soviet union did not forbid centralization of power in one person or in one party. when you have that centralization, the bill of rights can be disregarded or ignored. it is just words on paper. what makes us different is that we have a structure that decentralizes. it pits ambition against ambition.

what are the consequences of that? sometimes they do not agree. you have different centers of power, but most nations of the world don't have that. most nations don't have a genuine, bicameral legislation. most nations do not have a separately elected chief executive. when i go to europe to talk about separation of powers, i end up talking about an independent judiciary, because the europeans don't try to separate the two political powers, the legislature and the executive. the chief executive is a preacher of the legislature. when you have our system that disburses power, you have to match houses of congress that sometimes disagree -- two houses of congress that disagree. that is what has saved us. it is precisely the difficulty of enacting legislation that the

framers thought would be the principal protection for minorities. if this legislation is really going to come down on your minority, it does not take much to throw a monkey wrench into the system. a guest there is such a thing as going too far, but i am not one of those who out of the box complains about gridlock. gridlock is what our system was designed for. he said people don't complain about gridlock in the supreme court. that may be because we have to act. we cannot just say we have not decided about this case, so go away. sooner or later, we have to vote, and there it is. congress does not have to do that. i think that is the principal reason people don't accuse us of gridlock. they accuse us of a lot of other stuff, but we decide cases.

>> justice scalia, this has been a delightful morning with you. i know you are beginning the new term and i know how busy you are. i regret we only have 20 minutes with you this morning. it would be great to continue this, but i am being told in this little earphone -- >> i see somebody waving at you back there. >> we are appreciative of your time and of you participating. [applause] >> so we no gridlock is good, in case any of you thought it was not good. we will soldier on. next up, we have the ceo and chairman of exxonmobil being interviewed by maria border , who came down just to do it. >> thanks, margaret.

thanks for joining us today. >> it is my pleasure. >> we have seen oil prices down about 15% in the last 30 days. natural gas prices are also weaker. this is suggesting we are seeing a slowdown in the global economy. is the market getting it right? can you characterize what we are seeing on a demand perspective? >> demint is certainly sluggish in the united states -- demand is certainly sluggish. gasoline is all relative to last year. globally, demand is about where we expected it to be. certainly those part of the global economy that continue to do well, asia, china in particular, their demand is holding up, along with their economic growth. part of what we are seeing in

the oil price picture as well is just the supply fundamentals are actually pretty strong right now. you have to remember that last april, following the libyan uprising, where there was a loss of significant libyan supplies of oil to the market, which are very important to european and mediterranean refiners, there were some interruptions in the north sea this summer. there were some interruptions in nigeria. we had a very significant loss of supply from april until recently. now with the situation in libya beginning to work its way out, some of that production is finding its way back into the market. some of the north sea problems are behind us. the supply fundamentals are strengthening and much of the market is looking at that supply fundamental, and that is why there has been some downward pressure on the price. >> without asking you to tell us where oil prices are going, we

expect that the supply situation stays the way it is or strengthens? >> barring some type of civil unrest somewhere else in the world, the supply fundamentals are really quite good. the spare capacity that opec has available to it to put into the market, to offset some type of disruption, is still significant. new supplies of crude are very strong. the supply fundamentals for crude oil in the united states have an upward vector, depending on policy decisions that are taken here in the u.s. to support a more rapid and aggressive expansion of oil supplies here in the u.s. >> let me ask about natural gas as well. exxonmobil made a big bet with the axe would -- with the acquisition of xto. i don't think you'd expect natural gas to be where it is right now back then when you did

the deal. are you going to be a champion of natural gas as part of an energy policy in this country, given the fact that now you are the largest natural gas producer? >> we don't have our preference over one energy source or the other. we are fundamentally a petroleum and petrochemical company. we are oil, natural gas, and petrochemicals. we moved into the untraditional space with the purchase of xto. globally, unconventional resources in our outlook -- we expect the supplies from ocala unconventional resources are going to quintuple over the next five years. we are in the resource business, so we have to be in that space. the strategic question was how to enter the space.

do you build it in small increments, which means you have to build organizational capability over a long time, or do we take the opportunity that was presented to us with the xto offering, to step in and use that as critical mass. because of our scott -- size and scale, we need critical mass, and then build from there. that was the strategic thinking in terms of where gas prices are today. we are not particularly surprised because we could see the supply capacity developing in the shale plays at the time we did the xto merger. our review was gas prices would continue to decline. i would say they are staying low longer than expected they would, and that is just a function of two things, the weak economy in the u.s., which means industrial demand has not developed as quickly as we thought. then the supply side has held up remarkably well with a lot of

private equity money, a lot of foreign investment money coming into the unconventional space here in north america. >> if we continue to see prices move lower, and the smaller natural gas producers go it alone? are you expecting to see consolidation in the sector if we continue to see oil prices moved down? >> that is a very individual, company specific question. it depends on how they have structured themselves, how much leverage they have already taken on, whether they have sources of outside funding. many of the small companies have put in place significant joint ventures with foreign investors to fund a capital programs, which allows them to maintain their activity levels. it is difficult to say. cash flows are going to be under pressure for a lot of these companies where this is their sole play. >> so we should see more deals?

>> it is possible. next in terms of job creation, and i want to get back to energy policy and what it ought to look like, but in terms of job creation, what is your vision in terms of the potential for job creation as a result of what is happening in your sector? weathered the natural gas production, shale, oil, how do you create jobs in the country? >> it is by allowing our industry to do the things we have done for decades in this country. that means we have to have access to acreage to drill wells and put in facilities and build the infrastructure. today the oil and gas sector accounts for over 9 million jobs in the united states. the gas sector alone accounts for almost four million jobs. if you bring it down to a very personal level, where we have high unemployment, to the american people, it is what is

in it for me in terms of a job? a couple of examples are were talking about. one example is pennsylvania. over 18 months in pennsylvania, 72,000 jobs were created. once we are given access to an area in our industry, things happen very quickly. our recent study was done looking backwards, of the 10- year period that the barnett shale, where the hold shale gas technologies were birthed was that the barnett shale in central texas. a study by an independent economist was recently commissioned by the fort worth chamber of commerce. i want to give you a few statistics, because they are important to this question of jobs. this is not forecasting. we don't have to figure out if this is really true. are the 10-year period from 2001

to 2011, their work cut gains in output and jobs. if you look at the cumulative benefits, they sure the state of texas will receive about zero billion dollars of tax revenues out of that activity. over the 10 years, the region received $65 billion in output, 600,000 jobs. when our industry is allowed to go to work, things happen very rapidly and broadly. our industry requires a significant amount of support infrastructure around in terms of services, all the way from hotel spaces for oil-field workers to come in and stay as these rigs move around, to restaurants. there is a broad based economic impact. >> how does that jive with the criticism that the oil companies are already sitting on an

enormous amount of cash, not putting it to work, and getting tax breaks? there are all these tax loopholes at a time when we have so much upset about unemployment. how you quiet the critics in that regard? >> there was a lot in that question. the tax code that the oil and gas industry operates under, most of those provisions are uniform to businesses broadly. the oil and gas industry already is treated differently under provisions of the tax code, whether it is the manufacturer'' tax deduction, which was put in place to stimulate jobs. we already get a lower deduction and other industries in the country. they are not tax loopholes or subsidies. they are just the tax code, and we operate under the tax code. relative to the cash we are sitting on, it takes a lot of cash to run our business. in operating costs, we spend over a billion dollars a day to

run exxonmobil. in terms of capital investment, we are investing over $37 billion this year. that is a significant amount of investment. we would do more in the united states if we are given the opportunity to do so. we have said this many times. it is all about access. when you have two-thirds sitting under federal lands that we have no access to, 40% of natural gas resource potential sits under federal lands that we have no access to. if we do not have access, we cannot invest or spend money. >> some people are saying this is going to impact the environment, it will impact animals, wildlife. is that true? >> if you look at the facts in our industry, like any industrial activity, you are going to have incidents. it is about risk management, and you are never going to bat 1000. things are going to happen from

time to time. if you look at the enormity of activity in our industry against the impact, i think our record is very good. a lot of the opposition around shale gas today and a hydraulic fracturing of storing is all manufactured fear. people have manufactured this fear. if you look at the facts, and studies have been done by the epa, by air quality bureaus, there is no measurable health threat from hydraulic fracturing to fresh water. there is no measurable health threat related to air emissions. that is what the facts are. i have to characterize the opponents as manufacturing fear, because they have no facts to stand beside -- to stand behind their assertions. >> let me take you back to the bp oil spill in the gulf of mexico. are you back in the gulf of

mexico? what is the activity looking like they are, and the potential for activity? >> we currently do have 19 or 28 deep water rigs that have now returned to work in the gulf. we are still below pre incident levels. the rate at which we can get back to work is measured less lower. it is understandable, given that the interior department' has ben completely reorganize, as most of you are aware. there have been going through a reorganization. they suffered a number of losses of what i believe were very competent individuals in the agency that have chosen to retire and move onto other things. they are having to rebuild their human capacity. in some respects, i have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are going through a lot of reorganization. they have a lot of new people

coming into the agency that have to be trained. they are developing a whole new permitting process which we are having to learn how that works. there has been a lot of recycling of permits. even in our welts that we have permitted, we have had to go back to the process multiple times, the permitting is still very slow. we hope it will get better with time, as the process becomes more known to everyone, as people become more experience. clearly we are not back where we would like to be, and i know the industry like to be doing more. >> how would you compare the potential for activity in the u.s. versus around the world? yet the news yesterday about brazil. you have a big project in russia and in iraq. i wonder if the terms look

better to you in iraq? compare for us the potential for production in the u.s. versus outside of the u.s., and i want to talk about the competitiveness of this country. >> there is enormous potential here in the u.s. as>> and the like to talk not jt about the u.s., but north canton -- north america. canada has enormous resources potential that can be developed. in the united states, the key issue was government control and some much of the land and other resources. that is not uncommon, what is done, and is the sum much resource development occurs under private property. and the rest of the world, mineral ownership is held in the

hands of the government. the difference is, in other countries, the government wants natural resources developed. they wanted done properly so they have a regulatory scheme. their whole attitude toward resource development is what can we do to get this to happen? this country is very different. it is almost, what do we do to make it is difficult for you as we can. either we don't give you access, or there is a new regulatory scheme every few years that we have to adapt to. it is the cost of business in this country to develop natural resources. and you also have to have stability are round what your fiscal term is going to be. everything we invest in has a long play out in terms of economic viability.

you have to know that this is the tax system your investing under, i can count on that being relatively stable for the next 10-15 years. anytime you have questions about whether it is going to be stable --not >> what should policies look like from your standpoint? there is a debate about where america stands in his new normal of the global economy, and there is a lot of expectation that the gains are happening in places like china, india, and brazil. 0 and on some of the apologies that you should be changed. and how they should be changed. >> broadly, for u.s. economic competitiveness and u.s. business competitiveness in this country, clearly we have got to

tackle the tax code. we have long been an advocate of comprehensive tax reform both on the corporate side, and it is difficult to reform corporate tax without touching the personal because of the small business in your linkage that exists. have got to undertake a comprehensive tax reform. i think the business community has said that we're ready to put everything on the table, and we tell our counterparts and our colleagues is that you can't say you're going to stick this in your pocket. you have to put everything on the table, and we're just looking for a treatment that is equal across all industries, does not pick winners and losers. you can decide they like this but don't like that. we want equal treatment across the tax code. and get a corporate tax rate that is competitive and an international tax cut that is competitive.

>> competitive with the rest of the world? >> yes, in effect that is what the u.s. is doing. it is not competitive with its own internal tax code, we are not particularly competitive internationally. it is because of the bells and whistles we have had to put on it to make us competitive. there are plenty of templates that we can look to that would allow u.s. businesses to compete overseas, which is enormously important to the vitality of our economy back here, the foreign investments that companies make. >> would you like to see loopholes go away? what about lobbying? >> we would love to see a very simple tax code. hijacks department will be sorry to hear that, but they are smart people and i will find something else for them to do. a simplification that means

eliminating all of the -- if you have loopholes or subsidies, those are patches to texas -- to fix a defect. somebody said, we can't compete in manufacturing. we can't compete in some area globally so we put a patch in it. it looks like a loophole, but it was a patch to fix a problem that made us uncompetitive. rather than keep putting patches, let's clean that up. >> what kind of year are you expecting? >> for the economy? i am not as optimistic as i was six months ago. i think we will be in a fairly sluggish economic environment in this country. globally, the economy will probably not perform quite as robust because the u.s. and europe are a big piece of that regardless of how well china does.

china can't carry the whole world with its activity. we will have positive growth, it will not be as robust as we had hoped. >> thanks. [applause] >> next up, we have paul ryan of the eponymousfryan -- eponymous ryan budget. a regular at the washington ideas for an even though he is now a big shot. dave is now bureau chief of the new york times. thank you for coming. >> does it matter? i like to sit on the right to. -- right.

to the left of margaret carlsson. thank you, margaret. thank you, mr. chairman. it was not easy to get the chairman of wisconsin after the biggest sports weekend in the state history. >>, we won the super bowl, the big 10 championship. >> let's start with taxes that are in the news today. senate democrats calling for an increase in taxes, a surcharge on above $1 million. you said you don't want to tax the risk -- the rich, you to stop subsidizing. >> and these tax increases don't even put barely a dent in the deficit, but they do a lot of damage to the economy. look at where we're going right

now and 2013, the top individual rate which is what successful small businesses pay. that is going to 44.8% in 2013. we will tax the small businesses that nearly 50% the federal level. that is a job killer. instead of putting hurdles against economic growth, why don't we stop subsidizing the wealthy and corporate welfare? why don't we stop subsidizing people with entitlement programs? we could income adjusted these things and a means test these things. we could save money by not subsidizing the people that need them the least. stock picking winners and losers in washington that both parties have been doing. the third thing i would say is, i think it is dangerous for the country to speak in these divisive terms.

we are speaking to people as if they are some class, the government is here to help them cope with their station in life. it is divisive and really not what is in keeping with the american spirit of upward mobility. been -- >> the about means testing social security? >> on the corporate side, i would do away with all various loopholes. the international tax average is 25%. we are at 35%. on the individual side of the tax code were a think we have less of a chance of success in this current climate, a big there is a shot at bipartisan movement on the corporate business side. the more you get rid of the

loopholes, the more you can lower their rates. it does away with the various deductions. if you want to keep the old code, you can or go to as simplified system, you can. >> when you dig into the details, a lot of them are in favor of individual loopholes. >> it is a trade-off. the one to lower tax rates or do you want to send some money to washington and give something back if you do something washington approves of? it is not very good for the economy, for efficiency, for global competitiveness. it is not a very efficient system. both parties have made a mass of the tax cut. if we are talking about class warfare, it is the people in the top tax brackets that use of tax shelters. more of the income is subject to

taxation. it is fair, it is more competitive, it is simpler, and on the fairness issue, you can get at that tax fairness while helping the economy and lowering tax rates and reducing the hurdles to economic growth. >> let's talk about job killing tax increases and when president clinton raised taxes and he said it would throw a wet blanket over the economy. we heard predictions about how the tax cuts would be to the deflowering of economic growth, the slowest -- >> keep in mind, they did not cause that growth. >> the first thing i want to do is hear them grapple with the last 20 years of history. tax cuts have led to better

growth and tax increases haven't prevented it. >> growth occurs in the margin. you this incentivize work saving and investment. at the clinton years, there were a lot of things. there is great moderation with monetary policy, stable interest rates, sound money. steve jobs and all of his inventions, in 1997 budget agreement that put us on the path for surplus and reduced capital gains taxes. in this century, unlike the last century, we can no longer take for granted that we are the dominating world superpower. we have to compete. countries have been competing based on lowering tax rates with income. canada is lowering to 16%. england is working in getting their business tax rate down to 23%. ireland is 12.5% and they won't

change it with the austerity measures they are contemplating. when we are going this way and everybody is going that way, it is making us really uncompetitive. there are other circumstances, and i would argue that higher tax rates have hurt economic growth, but there are other things that have helped make up for those rags. >> let's talk about health care. for a long time, this is a little bit of an overgeneralization. but a lot of democrats wanted universal care and a lot of republicans wanted to see universal coverage through something like a private market and a mandate. >> i would not say and a mandate, i would say private market. >> maybe there was division among it. we have seen democrats moved to the private market and

republicans -- on the universal coverage, i don't have a good sense of it. is it something that you favor? how do we get it? >> i believe we can have a system of universal assets, even for people with pre-existing conditions without going toward a single payer system. i believe the tax code is the key to this. with the way that we use tax policy for individuals, if you don't get your health insurance, you don't get a tax benefit. if you are in the top tax bracket, you get the biggest benefits. that makes no sense. it gives rise to the third-party payments system and a fuel of health inflation. the key to this commented the couple that tax benefit from a person's job and attach it to the worker. so they have its. you don't have the same job for

the rest of your life. that can get universality. that can be interstate chopping, high risk pools, a refundable tax credit meaning more to the people that need and help the most. let's stop subsidizing the wealthy. that can get me a universal system. it is a system that his patient centered. it is the patient and the doctor, not the government. it is one of the chief reasons why you have a health care costs and an inflation problem. >> there is a system where you have a tax credit you take around. without a mandate. healthy people don't sign up for insurance. and what that should do is drive the price of insurance sky high. >> we spent about two years working on this very problem because we don't think our

mandate is the right idea and we don't think it is constitutional. although enrollment is the answer. the bill we produced, it has auto enrollment. they'll have a tax credit that they are entitled to. the dmv, the hospital, you will be enrolled in a basic health insurance plan when you experience government. and your tax credit will go from the basic -- it is a much better way of having a very good take up rate instead of having this mandate that i think is a very crude and unconstitutional way to go. >> the idea is that lots of people will do it -- >> why would you not do it? it is easy to do, the odds are you're going to sign up for it.

>> of the argument thinks that some young person says i am not going to get sick. >> but he will not get a tax credit for anything. you'll get the tax credit for his health insurance plan. and if he doesn't sign up for it, he doesn't get it. if he breaks his leg, he will have to pay cash. they can say, you don't have insurance, let's sign you up for a basic plan. you don't want to have an incentive to wait until a person gets sick to get insurance. with the auto enrollment strategies, you can get people insured. >> what is your prediction of what the supreme court does? >> kennedy is a guy. >> some people think that aledo could hold it. >> i think it will knock down the individual mandate.

will they several of the whole thing go down? i can't give speculation on that. >> can you of imagine the republican house doing something like auto enrollment? >> to save the present health- care law? we're not going to do that. >> to make sure universal health care happens. >> we have extremely detailed alternatives to the health care law. i just outlined a small piece of what we have outlined for a vibrant health care system and what i believe it should be. a portable tax benefit, medical liability, transparency on price and quality. we fundamentally believe that in 2013, the law doesn't kick until 2014, forget about the supreme court. the with the mandate is set, it is such a low hurdle, the most

people will wait and pay the penalty. we want to replace it, repeal it and replace it. we think it is going to collapse the health care system. it is a house of cards. the ipad will collapse that system. this medpack on steroids that tells people, scientific evidence does not support this, we are not going to cover it. >> a board that is elected next year, congress doesn't have anything to do with it and they unilaterally put these price controls and a lot, more importantly, i think the incentive structure is to have firms dumped their employees and the exchange and it will be expensive firms that maintain health insurance. the cost of the changes are not going to explode.

with richard subsidies, it will bankrupt the country. >> i assume you were disappointed by that moment when people cheered about the notion of someone dying because of not having insurance. it was this for a moment and of the republican candidate debate was some talk about the notion of someone dying because of health insurance. a lot of people wanted you to get into the race. tell us why you didn't. >> i like myself too much, i think. when other people wanted to run more than you want to, don't run. you have to run the -- you have to want this is so badly. i don't have this burning desire. the kids are 6, 8, 9. we like our life. >> the front runners seem to

change by the week, and the front runner seems to be met ronnie. he has a lot of things that seem at odds with your beliefs. mandating mass., some of the things he has talked about while running for senate. what is your attitude about him? >> we should not have a 15. litmus test that you have to satisfy to let you in our party. that is ridiculous. let's rally around the tallest pull at our big tent, economic liberty, free enterprise, limited government, and save the country. i believe the country is in a very precarious spot. we will have a debt crisis on our hands and just a couple of years, and if we don't get this turned around, we will have a european austerity situation on our hands. let's fix that problem which is the problem right now.

if scott brown and i don't agree, that's fine. let's fight for this, respect each other's opinions. let's fix the country right now. >> i am a conservative, but i respect the fact that not everybody agrees with me on every issue. >> it is now a romney or perry race, do you buy that? >> i don't. we have seen too many times that conventional wisdom get out the door. this thing is too far out. i just heard that steve forbes is signing up. there luminaries in the conservative movement and are probably giving his candidacy some left. having this will be a real race. >> is always a pleasure to talk ideas of public and private.

[applause] >> today on the c-span networks, at 5:30 p.m., former massachusetts governor and presidential candidates mitt romney hosted a town hall meeting. on cspan 2, the ceo of light squared about the company planned to build a $14 billion high-speed wireless network. and at 7:00 p.m. on c-span 3, the environmental impact of gas production. >> tonight, a look at the proposed 7,000 mile pipeline that would carry crude oil from canada through illinois, oklahoma, and on to the gulf coast. >> we need to stand together for mother earth because she is crying. the profits he tells us that when mother earth cries, we fight for her.

she will die and we will die with her. i ask everyone to remember crying errors. rise up with mother earth. say no to this pipeline. no, no, no, no! >> this is not a regional impact, it is a national impact. if approval would come through, it would stimulate the economic recovery and put us back on our feet. many here today focus on job creation and recovery to have the opportunity to have some of the best paying jobs here in the united states. >> will show the entire public hearing in a series hosted by the state department and the discussion representing differing views of the pipeline tonight at 8:30 eastern on c- span t2. >> it is a story on the topic of your choosing.

every good story has a good beginning, solid metal, and strong ending. >> today, cell phones do a great job of capturing video. if you don't have access to better video equipment, don't let that stop you. if you need help, go to studentcam.org. >> i find useful to read the rules very carefully and make a checklist of what you need to do. the process becomes clearer once you get started. >> you can work alone or you can work in teams. if you're a good writer, get a friend to help out. the only will you learn something, but you will increase your chances of winning.

>> you don't have to be an expert to make this work. you can use your parents, students, teachers, and c-span as resources along the way. the process is 5 and extremely rewarding. with a little bit of effort, anyone can do this. >> the army secretary today said that the army will be able to function with lower numbers of troops in the iraq and afghanistan brought down plans. he said the army should not be subjected to more cuts like other branches of the military. he delivered the keynote address at the association for the u.s. army conference in washington. this part of his remarks are 25 minutes.

>> last year, i said this was really the first opportunity i had to speak with you as the army secretary because my first appearance in 2009, i had only been on the job a few weeks, so i was still trying to find my way are round of the e-ring. this is my third meeting and i have gone from being the new person to the old timer. at least in the army section of it. since i first spoke to you, had since last year, i have now worked with three different chiefs of staff, at two secretaries of defense, to deputy secretaries of defense, to chairman and two vice chairman of the joint chiefs. i have to tell you with all those changes, i would have thought i had a better parking space by now. but i understand my place.

i do think i need to caution the new chief, because as i did the calculations, i'm going through chief of staff per speech. you might want to watch your back. it is a great honor to be here. i can't think of any place i would rather be. but i am a little confused as to why we are kicking this a great army celebration off on columbus day. i always thought of columbus day was more of the navy holiday. i don't mean it because of the 1492 ocean blue stuff, but in my mind, christopher columbus was the quintessential army man. he did not know where he was going. when he got there he didn't know where he was, and he came back into a didn't know where he had been. but before he left, he had have three new ships.

[applause] i am willing to bet my dear friend, and he is a good friend. the secretary would probably not agree with my assessment, but we have a good natured service rivalry and we can do that because we both recognize the partnership our service -- and our services have enjoyed. and our important of those partnerships to the strength of our nation and a nation's defense. that having been said, though army, the navy. in all seriousness, the army, navy, air force, marines, coast

guard. they're facing a critically important year, a year that i think will shape the face of our national defense for many years to come. we have often talked about the great stress and strain that a decade of war has placed upon our soldiers, their families, and that is still true. we worked diligently everyday to make certain they get what they need. to get it when they need it. that we give them all the support they require to build resilience and all the care of that is necessary. there is one stress and strain ha others have felt, and we have not given it a lot of thought. that is the strain that a decade of war has had on our federal budget and the american

taxpayer. for some time, it seemed as though the department of defense and the united states army has had near limitless resources for what ever we have needed. but after 10 years of war, a shaky global economy, that is changing. your army, the department of defense, it is understandable, the significant pressure to do better. all you have to do is go on tv, turn on our radio, read a newspaper. each day, the president, congressional leaders are struggling with ways to try to deal with this budget crisis, trying to stimulate the economy, agree upon the path that which they can reduce the deficit, have some of that effort will inevitably fall upon our doorstep. and in fact, it already has.

secretary gates warned before he left, the gusher has been turned off and will stay off for a good time. despite declining defense budgets, we still have an obligation to preserve the strategic options provided to the president of the united states by maintaining sufficiently modernize forces capable of rapidly deploying a decisive combat power. no major conflict has ever been won without boots on the ground. and our national interests demand that while we set about the task of reshaping this army for the years ahead, we remain steadfast and continue to support this, the greatest land force the world has ever known. [applause] as the secretary observed when

he was sworn in, we don't have to make a choice between fiscal discipline and national security. decisions on defense spending must be made carefully, thoughtfully, and strategically. the decisions that we make must preserve our ability to protect our national interests and not break faith with the men and women who are fighting for us because we asked them to. the current and future threats, the military must remain the finest in the world. it must be a deployable full spectrum force that can project power and win wars. that is a great challenge, and that challenge will bring about difficult times and difficult decisions. i will tell you as well that it is an opportunity to shape,

change, and transfer the opportunity to not just come forward with the fiscal constraints of today, but to better meet the challenges that somewhere, sometime, we will face tomorrow. it is a reality that every time we endeavor to predict the future conflicts, we often miss the target. a speech at west point, when it comes to predicting the future, we are perfect. we have always gotten it wrong. the end of world war one, world war two, beyond. budget and structure decisions were made in a fashion that over time depleted our forces and strained the quality of life from our soldiers and their families. unlike in the past, we have seen this downturn coming for some time, and under leadership of

secretary gates and now secretary pennetta, we have been analyzing the best way to meet these challenges and we are better positioned than any time in our nation's history to deal with the fiscal realities and do it in a way that makes sense. all of us have to understand it, i think we do. the army will look different in the future that it does today as we brought down in two theaters. we think we can handle that challenge. what is critically important, no matter what the forced ultimately looks like, we have a sufficient time to ramp down and ensure that we do it and a balanced way, that we have what is necessary for training equipment and perhaps most importantly, we continue to stand by those troops.

even in the darkest hours of 2006 and 2007, they never wavered, never abandoned the battlefield. we instructed that if you don't learn from history, you repeat it. let's hope all of us have learned from history as we debate and decide the future of land powers in the future of our army. there is no question that this past decade has placed great strains on all of the service branches. there is no question that each of us has unique needs to rebuild this conflict and prepare for the warhead. what truly concerns me is that i listened to and read some of the columnists, analysts, the talking heads, a suggestion that the services recover at the

sacrifice of others. that the united states pro lee doesn't need a strong and decisive standing army. the future to them looks more like transformers then saving private ryan. history looms before us once again. great leaders like and douglas macarthur and george marshall warned about cutting too much, too far, too fast. and about the importance of having an army in place that is ready to answer america's call at any time, anywhere. even with some not so great leaders like an upstate congressman warning of the dangers of cutting too far and putting our nation as strategic risk. just weeks before the attacks of september 11, 82 of my colleagues and i wrote to

secretary runs fell the warning about using cuts in the army as a bill payer for other programs. we said, while we support the efforts to ensure our military is prepared for future conflicts, reduction in the core structure would clearly undermine that goal. one of my own new york state newspapers was critical of that effort, accusing us of clinging to the relics of the old twentieth century force. they wrote for that with high tax here power and precision munitions increasingly dominating the battlefield, it makes sense, to consider reducing the conventional force. then came september 11, and an enemy that did not quite sure that newspaper's editorial views.

nevertheless, there is no question our needs for supremacy in all forms has to be achieved and maintained. we must develop and utilize all the available technology to establish every means of tactical superiority that is available to us. i would argue that one need not happen at the expense of the other. we must insure that we have a balanced approach to meet our nation's future defense needs. in his work, this kind of war, there was a passage that is probably familiar to many if not most of you. he said, you may fly over land forever. you may bomb at, pulverize it, but if you desire to defend it, protect it, and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground.

the with the roman legions did, by putting your young men into the mud. the observations are as relevant today as they ever were, because while we shot, we did the most important thing to ensure victory. we marched. there is no getting around the fact that if the army that has been saddled with much of the burden of these past years providing between 50 and 70% of our the foible forces, and while i of don't view them as budgetary statistics, it is important to remind people that while the army represents half of the entire force, we consume only about 30% of the entire defense budget. the army, a decisive army

remains vital to the national austerity both today and in the future. it is something i believed from both sides of the potomac. first is a congressman and now as a secretary. if we are going to do the right thing and maintain a proper set of structure and balance in an era of declining budgets, something has got to give. we have been working hard to try to figure out ways to reduce costs and create greater efficiencies. last year, i told you that i found a project, and the project have since given me hope that there are things the army can do, we must do, to meet the challenge is currently before us. they confront a very dynamic,

decentralized, adaptive and a deadly enemy. and those fighters have changed as new trucks arrived. our institutions, from training and development to personnel systems must be able to adapt just as quickly and just as efficiently. but it is structured today as much as it has been for the past decade. we have set out to change that. as you may already know, i have issued a number of directives to began transforming that institutional army. but to fundamentally change and reshape the way they do business. among those efforts are research and development, reviewing

temporary organizations, the task force to see if they are still needed or relevant to the challenges that we face today. he directed efforts to consolidate and streamline their requirements process, optimized army service acquisition. we are working on sweeping changes in human capital management. a survey we conducted found that 65% of active-duty general officers raided personnel management as one of the worst performing functions in the army. human capital management is most important with the least agile system. i said you can't have an air force without airplanes, you can't have a navy without ships and you can't have an army without people. people is what we are about. to hear someone tell us that we are not developing or managing that area is pretty tough to

take. i am not just talking about attracting, retaining, and selecting the best available people, as important as that is. it is how we further develop them once they come in. how we manage human capital and build on the investment we have made on the civilians, soldiers, and how we ensure that the opportunities for creativity and leadership that are present in the battlefield are still present henry bring those warriors home. it is a path to guaranteeing that we are ready for the future. if we don't do these kinds of things, others will do them for us. others will do them to us. we will risk being salami slice, hollowed out. this is our chance, it is our moment to lead and innovate. let me just give you one other

example of what we can do, what we have done to restructure. based onucture's findings from a taskforce, of the $243 billion the army had to spend in 2010, 140 billion of that was spent on contracts. and of that, more than half was spent on services. that translated into about 260,000 actions awarded by 225 different offices carried out by thousands and thousands of different people. i thought there might be a better way to do that kind of thing, and i think we found it. i directed a new government structure that immediately consolidated about 45% of all service obligations and just 6

portfolio management centers. those are facilities support services, medical services, transportation services, electronics and communication, and knowledge based services. this will, i believe firmly, improve oversight and effectiveness are helping us taylor, apply, and monitor the results of better buying practices for improved acquisitions as well as leveraging portfolio demand for better pricing. these kinds of actions identified by us, structure divide us, implemented by us and will help us work and in positive ways to deal with the budget that will be formulated for us by others. we can, we must, and i promise you that we will do better. civilian, is top

have one of the greatest honors this week. yes, i get to help kick off this week with what amounts relate to a prime-time address. that is the honor. but the challenge is trying to make all of this bureaucracy sound remotely interesting when i know what you're really want is a hoo-ah. i have to tell you, i have been blessed by my share of moments this past year. the mark of the tenth anniversary on the attacks of america with somber observations in new york and right here at the pentagon. it is the first time reflected and remember those losses with of the world's most notorious terrorist still at large. we entered a policy of forced

men and women to lie about who they were. we know who they are, they are american soldiers. and there are great feats of personal courage and sacrifice. not long after last year's's convention, he awarded the medal of honor to first platoon of a company for his actions during a fire fight in afghanistan's valley. he became the first living recipients since vietnam. a few months later, a sergeant first class of the seventy fifth major regimented became the second of all living aria of these conflicts, recognized for saving the lives of these fellow rangers. what they might have done differently if i had the chance,

without a heartbeat lost, he said he would have thrown it with his left hand. that is an american soldier. we inducted both of these great heroes and our whole of heroes, and it was a great privilege for all of us to honor these men for their service and their valor. they clearly show why orders of today are being known as the nation's next greatest generation. over the course of this past year, i've seen the next greatest generation at work and service to america. deployed at the very difficult theaters of war and also across the country's spanning the globe. whether fighting terror in the philippines or keeping peace, challenging nature is on the banks of the mississippi river horse cowering long ago

battlefields to bring home a fallen but not forgotten comrade. their missions are complex, their service remarkable, and i am humbled to be remotely in their company. i recognize the great challenge, the great possibility that we have to these men and women that were the uniform of the american soldier. to their families, to the civilian work force. we had a chance to spend some time with a young captain and a first lieutenant in just a little more than a year out of a military academy. in charge of operations, they led the combat missions, the captain and the first lieutenant that clear that part of the valley. they engaged with the village elders throughout the region and negotiated with them, assuring them of the best interest that we had coming to their part of

the world. the work to equip and train afghans, forming the local afghan police. there the very essence of a full spectrum operations. the level of responsibility, authority that we have given these incredibly young leaders is unprecedented. they are doing jobs today that ranks of 2005 and 2006, perhaps even 2007 would be expected to achieve. and we count on them every single day and they have performed remarkably. [applause] how we ensure that the opportunities for creativity, leadership, and advancement has been present on the battlefields of today exists throughout the army tomorrow, no matter what deployments look like, it will

be the challenge for us to make sure that we are ready for tomorrow. it'll make certain that the army as a whole and unpredictable missions of the future -- equally important, as we continue wrestling with budget realities, we must heed the lessons of history in deciding our future strength. it is the same lesson george marshall warned about repeatedly, perhaps never so strongly than in a widely publicized addressed shortly after the allied victory, respect is intangible. consider what it would have meant to us in tangibles had we commanded the military respect of germany, italy, and japan in 1939. marshall spoke of the nation's, not only the willingness, but

the capability to organize, to fight, to win. he pondered that had been anticipated american willingness and resolve, perhaps the world might never have known world war two. but respect, he said, is fleeting unless we bend our efforts to preserve it. this must be our solemn obligation, to ensure this nation's continued respect, built on the valor, sacrifice, and bloodshed of this magnificent a volunteer force. the young men and women that committed and recommitted themselves to this nation after the attacks on our shores. we want to ensure that our nation's strength and resolve is never again so challenge. thank you for or partnership.

thank you for all that you have done in support of these amazing men and women in uniform. a lot less america, and god bless this incredible army that keeps it safe. [applause] >> we are expected to go live to new hampshire in half an hour. former massachusetts gov. mitt romney is holding a town hall meeting. we'll have that live. also, c-span radio and cspan.org. expect to get underway at 5:30 eastern. last monday, sanjiv ahuja spoke about building a wireless network. >> americans will have access to connectivity even after natural disasters and other things happening through a satellite

network. >> questions about their goals and possible interference. when coalition to save our gps jim kirkland and fred schulte. on "the communicator's," c- span [applause] -- c-span 2. >> i have said all along that when this matter was properly submitted to the rank and file of our people, it has no place in our constitution. >> he served as governor of new york four times even though he never attended high school or college. al smith became the first catholic nominated by major party to run for president. although he lost the election, he is remembered by the alfred smith memorial dinner, a fund- raiser for various catholic charities and the main stock for

the presidential candidates every year. he is one of the 14 men featured in the c-span's weekly series "the contenders." >> the federal government spends about $20 billion a year in financial assistance to farmers. reuters and culture reporter charles avid was on "washington journal" talking about those subsidies. >> on the day's segment, a look into the farm subsidy program. thank you for being with us this morning. president obama wants to cut farm programs by $33 billion over 10 years. how much of these cuts will come from subsidies?

>> almost all of them will come from subsidies. the question is, how you define subsidies? almost all of the money will come through elimination the type of subsidy called the direct payment. the lingo is called "historical production. also, program crops. barley, oats, cotton, barley, rice, soy beans. it is made regardless of need or economic circumstances. as i said, it is based on historical production. it essentially comes through shaving back the federally

subsidized property insurance systems. several billion dollars a year through subsidized purchase of the crop of buying for individual producers. to the acres of cropland, it pays 60 cents out of every dollar. the government also pays a couple billion dollars a year for the administration and overhead costs of crop insurance companies. and in agreement, it takes on some of the risk of losses. overall, the program costs the government several billion dollars a year. going into the future, the farm bill could possibly be written this fall. it is scheduled to be written next year. it would be the most expensive of the crop support the government is offering. >> farmers are doing quite well relative to the past and the

general economy of the country. i'm looking at numbers coming to us. as predicted, net farm income is $103 billion, that is up 31%, $24 billion from last year. the annual cost of direct cash subsidies is $4.7 billion and president obama as plan proposes ending those subsidies. >> since roughly 2006, the agriculture sector has enjoyed, overall, a phenomenal time. there was a down year immediately following this recession, but overall, they have very high income levels. there are parts of the industry who have had problems. overall, it is very good times.