>> make a distinction of large- scale farms verses small-scale farms. >> that is harder, the government has -- the government generally defined of form as any establishment that is capable of producing somewhere around $1,000 of agricultural livestock products a year. about 2.2 million farms in the united states. about 400,000 of them actually produce most of the food and fiber. a million of them are very small operations, they could be operated on the evening or on weekends by people. the 2008 farm bill try to eliminate -- we should not be supporting hobby farms, and

congress eventually stepped in. >> where are you calling from? >> i have a question, why don't we -- it is a crop that doesn't hurt the soil. like michigan, historically, the banking figures. like cotton and everything. overall, the legalization of marijuana, why don't we have people educated hughes these crops?

-- to>> there is a small industy that has been using as a fabric, hemp is in some varieties marijuana. there's concern that this should be an undercover way of bringing illegal products into production. there have been fights in the farm organizations whether they should support industrial hmep. hemp has been used in making rope and other commercial products. there is no problem because adam merkel is such a big sack -- since agriculture is such a big sector, aside from the fact that

he cannot grow illegal varieties of it. there is an opening for this product. host: our guest is chuck abbot. the programs fall into four main areas. guest: marketing orders which limit the types and sizes and even color of commodities that can be taken into market. host: crop insurance, commodity

programs, conservation programs. which are deemed to be on the chopping block? are some of these programs deemed to be more he central? guest: the 2012 farm -- at the moment, and this has been true since the start of the year, the direct payment is most on the chopping block and has been mentioned explicitly by people, meaning legislators. it got some mention in the deficit commission report, an area to look for cuts. that is the most obvious place the cut. looking into the budget side, it is less money -- there will be less money for the 2012 farm law

than the 2008 farm law. it will be $10 billion behind where they were in 2008. debt limit we had over the fsummer tease there will be further cuts. at the same time, we have a direct payment that identifies the most obvious place to go for funding and crop insurance is increasingly expensive. it has doubled in cost in the last five years, certainly the last 10 years. there is a lot of speculation that the cuts, the minimum will be up to $50 billion over 10 years, which can be accommodated by reducing the

direct payment or limiting it and creating a revenue protection system. i will back up for a moment. a lot of the commodity groups, which are groups that represent corn, soybeans, cotton, have put out proposals for the farm bill, that assume -- there has to be less money spent. they offered some sort of savings, by reducing the direct payments, and they are explicit that they will reduce the direct payment, and for the most part they will create an insurance- like system that would protect farming against catastrophically low yields or low market prices. this is an insurance-like program.

there are programs that do that sort of thing. this would be a remarkable change in u.s. policy to go that route. where will the cuts most likely occur? they will mostly likely occur in the most traditional subsidies and -- host: get to the idea of need- based subsidies. guest: let me go back to the direct payment, which was created in 1996. it was used to make up for elimination of some portions that have been used up to that time. in 2002 it became a permanent payment. interestingly, the direct payment is the type of payment that is most likely to be deemed in compliance with world trade

organization rules. it is a needs-based program that respond to low prices. while they are incredibly popular in the united states, they would have a hard time if they go above a certain level of being within the world trade organization rules. it is a fascinating paradox. caller: i had a brief statement to make a quick question. this is always considered a real welfare program. this is actually -- and i have looked at it as subsidizing farmers not to grow crops, that there's too much corn in the

world market, etc. ing able-sidiz bodied people not to work. is that what the best means -- the guest means? is that something that would be cut? guest: no. the 1996 farm law of the regulated farming -- deregulated farming, in that it remove limits on how much crops could be planted. when we talk about reducing the direct payment, it is saying it is a more straightforward way to save farmers get $5 billion a year. there are more than 200 crops

grown in the united states. the eight major field crops would get in step $5 billion, they would get something less. it is not linked to crop production. if you receive a direct payment, you can grow anything you want. the direct payment is based on past production. past production is some point during the 1980's, into the 1990's. host: u.s. farming is critical. can the farm subsidies be tied to those who are below a certain threshold? guest: the easy answer is they can. it would be harder to do that as a practical matter. it would be harder to create that sort of program.

the government had difficulty in enforcing payment limits in the 's, whennce the 1970 co congress decided to limit the amount of money that operators could collect in support. these are called payment limits, which is how much money and operator can get in one year. they have developed a lot of ways to get around it. people subsidized -- subdivided their farms. they created their children to be full partners in the farm. their five-year-old child was the primary operator of land to get around a payment limit. congress has found more and more ways over the years to plug those polls. host: usdsa 2012 request for

commodity programs is $5.6 billion. guest: that is what is most likely to be cut. host: let's hear from a republican color in south carolina. caller: good morning. i am a timber farmer in south carolina, and it is my opinion that all agricultural subsidies should be abolished. it is nothing but a convoluted mess of gated by greed. let me give you a fine example of this. in 1985 when the programs came out, i planted 400 acres of cotton, soybeans, corn, and goalie pine trees in 10 years, the program ended, but i have kept my pines on the land.

i now have 27-year-old pines of loblolly pines, since 1995, when the program ended, i have received a payment from the government for not planting corn, soybeans, oats my land. i get over $6,000 a year, and i have gotten that for over 15 years. it is ridiculous. the farm lobby is the most vocal and de rg reid e. it needs to be stopped. it is ridiculous. thank you. guest: i mentioned that the american enterprise institute should be able to track that call, which is one of the few think tank so far to have put out information for the 2012 farm bill, and they say to get rid of the subsidies. there are a number of -- who

would change the subsidy system as it is now structured. a.i. gets the award for being the most straightforward in its analysis andin saying get rid of everything. from here's a question joe. guest: that is a good question. it is something that has been debated for decades. i was in preparation for this show last night and got a copy of the book entitled "american agriculture in the 20th century." the author was an official in the first bush administration. the u.s. government has had a

role in american agriculture since the start of the country, but the most direct involvement grew out of the depression in the late 1920's, and the entire 1930's. it is still a sizable fraction of the population who live on farms, and as part of the idea of the new deal, getting the economy moving again, the government began paying farm subsidies in those days. it was linked to production control, paying people not something. in the next 50 years the government tried to limit production because it seemed u.s. farmers were perennially going to overproduce, there would be a huge surpluses that

the government would be sitting on, and market prices would be low. it has only been since the 2006 when we got this marginal uptrend in the economy that the farm sector has been booming. there were good times also in the mid 1990 house, but they ended with the aisan flu, which was economic distress, and not influenza. host: we talked about how commodity programs -- disaster assistance was at $1.5 billion. guest: and they are all going away. one of the most significant accomplishments of kent conrad was creation of a program called

the supplemental revenue assistance program. the program runs out of money and expired the first of this month. it created a few other subsidiary programs -- livestock indemnities -- these programs, when treated, were supposed to cost around $5 billion over five years. there was a cbo estimate that said they would cost twice the amount. this is one of the reasons when congress starts right thing the new farm bill that it will be in the hole as far as expenditures, and the supplemental revenue asseses program is one of the half-dozen disaster programs that will have

no funding in the new farm bill, and there are about 30 other programs that also ran out of money, and they include assistance for bringing biofuel into commercial production -- i had three or four of them in my brain, but they all went away. to mike fromo washington, d.c. caller: i had two comments. this is not relative to the farmers a direct payments. this is on the crop insurance side. as the 2012 farm bill approaches, i would like your opinion on the fact that the program receives $6 billion in cuts from the 2008 farm bill and to the fra which is the agreement between the government

of the crop insurance companies that went through last year. it took another $6 billion in cuts, and the $12 billion has not been fully implemented it, and they are considering additional cuts. my second comment is that we're talking about subsidies for the premium side of crop insurance, and i feel the americans benefit from crop insurance, because it provides us domestic security and international balance of trade, and there are a lot of benefits that we get from the subsidy. thank you. guest: those are good arguments in support of the crop insurance system. i got a copy of the president's proposal, which would reduce the crop insurance system. the proposal, the administration

says crop insurance will cost taxpayers $8 billion a year to run, and it includes $2.3 billion per year for private insurance companies to underwrite the program, and $6 billion a year in premiums since these to the farmer, and the administration proposal is to reduce the crop insurance -- the rate of return of crop insurance companies 12%, which is $2 billion, which is the biggest chunk of savings that the administration wants to get out of the crop insurance program. then there would be adjustments to reduce some costs by tying it to inflation. there would be a slightly higher price on supplying catastrophic insurance coverage, and the administration proposes reducing the premium subsidies by two points all the policies that have more than a 50% federal

subsidy. that is mostly revenue policies. the administration makes a point that most of this would not come out of farmers' pockets, except for course reducing the payment subsidy. imagine that the crop insurance is a pretty good deal, and at the moment -- an economist says right now farmers are getting $2 and benefits for every dollar they put out when they buy crop insurance. $2 in coverage. they argue it costs $1.44. [unintelligible] every dollar in support that is provided.

they would happily get rid of the entire program. host: the 2012 budget request is $10 billion, and participation is voluntary. it is delivered through private insurance companies. guest: the crop insurance -- the government has been in and out of crop insurance for decades. the program got its biggest boost about a decade ago when the government passed a law that allowed the agriculture department to provide subsidies for what is called buy-up coverage for my getting higher levels of coverage. at that point, they were encouraging people to buy insurance, and people tended to buy insurance that covered catastrophic losses, like the

drought that wipes out everything. with the support for this type of coverage, farmers are more and more buying revenue policies, policies that protect their revenue against low prices or poor yields, and they by higher and higher levels. it is common for people to buy 70% protection, which gets to the point the administration is making that this program is costing a lot more than it used to cost. and going into the future it will cost more than the traditional type of crop subsidies. it probably is related to the fact that is now the premier part of the crop support budget which alone would guarantee people to find savings. host: chuck abbot is a reporter

for reuters. brandon is in nashville, tennessee. would you please speak to water subsidies. guest: i was preparing and was wondering what would be a trick question. this is a useful question, because it points to the value of indirect subsidies, and what are the arguments that have grown up in the last several years, which are to this point agriculture subsidies are paid primarily to producers of eight major field crops, meaning they

are grown on lots of acres, but half of agricultural crop revenue comes from specialty crops, for its and vegetables -- crude and vegetables. there is an argument that has some amount of currency, considering the americans are having problems with obesity, that the government should be encouraging people to eat more ruits and vegetables. why don't we provide subsidies to people who grow first and vegetables? -- fruits and vegetables? people who grow these crops create standards, which are a help the consumers as well,

because when people go to the grocery store you look at an orange that will be roughly the same size and same color and the same quality. creating standards in their own way are a barrier the competition, because you cannot buy the small tomato or you cannot buy fruit that does not look good. as our caller said democrats -- said, there are water projects constructed by the u.s. government that to provide irrigation waters most notably to the central valley of california and water is provided below market prices. this is also a benefit. what is the proper price for

water? that is a subject that would be better brought to somebody with more experience, but is an example that there are indirect benefits given to the industry, and i should mention the crop industry benefits from the fact that the government buys billions of dollars a year in fruits and vegetables. 2008 lawo say tha 20e creates baselines. >> host: at the end of 2010, the conservation reserve program and enrollment totaled two 31 million acres. guest: this is an important area

to talk about and one that is easy to overlook when you talk about traditional farm subsidies. conservation has been an activity -- i see conservation -- for a lot of people, a more comprehensible term would be land storage. it is activities intended to reduce soil erosion, to protect water quality, or protect habitat for wildlife. for a long time, the federal response was to try to avert crop surpluses by idling farmland. most recently, 1985, we have the conservation reserve program, which pays farmers -- land owners an annual rent for

periods of either 10 years or 15 years at a time for retiring fragile farm land from use. one of the things -- one of the questions that congress will have going into this 20,012 farm all will be the future of storage of programs, as the world seems to be high demand for food, tight stocks, and higher prices. the united states has lots of experience in trying to constrain for production. it has very little experience in what to do in a world which seems to be -- which is forecast in which food will be in high demand. one of the questions is how to

handle land stewardship in that regime. one thing that is beginning to develop as the idea is reducing the amount of land that is in the reserve, that is easily idling -- does of the reserve is to idle agile land, but there are about 10 million acres of land in the conservation reserve, one-third of the land, which could be formarmed, at soe cost possibly with care for selection of the types of crops or crop rotation or the types of livestock that are put on the land. senator lugar unveiled a proposal last week which would reduce the conservation reserve to 24 million acres, which is a modest return, but that could

increase grain production by a percentage point or two, which the united states has somewhere approaching 300 man acres of farmland in major crops. that is a fair amount of land. host: let's hear from a republican caller in washington, kansas. good morning. caller: i wish they would call the farm bill the food security act. i would like a comet on the renewable standard of farm income and. guest: there are two good points to talk about. we've been talking about farm

subsidies, and i have talked about the farm law, which is a panoramic piece of legislation, and it covers -- the last one had two dozen titles, each title being a different topic, subsidization, rural the belmont, food assistance, agricultural research, and the biggest one is public nutrition programs which going into the future are expected to account for 75% of the agriculture spending. that takes care of the question of -- it is a food at, yes, it is. the renewable fuel standards, i

use this line before, a former congressman from south dakota has described the biofuels boom that started a decade ago as picking up the slack in rural america and allowing agriculture to run at full throttle. it is perhaps coincidental that the boom in farm income co relates with a boom in biofuels production. the noble standard, which is an energy law, guarantees a set share of the motor fuel market for renewable fuels, corn-based ethanol, and in 2011, the target is 12.6 billion gallons of fuel, which of the% or so of all the motor fuel in the united states,

increased to 13 billion gallons next year. that is using 40% of the united states corn crop, although at this point the industry would raise its hand and say we return part of that in dried grains and other products which are used in livestock feed. it is not a huge amount of the corn crop, but it is a big deal. with regard to presidential politics, it may be more debatable this year than four years ago. congress has shown less enthusiasm for supporting biofuels year than in years past. host: chuck abbot, thank you for being here with us this morning. >> we were planning a town hall

meeting for mitt romney in new hampshire. because of technical problems, this will be aired later. >> for the first time americans will have access to productivity, and if there are natural disasters, throughout our satellite network. >> tonight, paul broun, jim kirkland, and fred schulte, denied it 8:00 p.m. eastern on "the communicators." >> last week, prosecuting

national security reporters. from berkeley university, this is an hour and 10 minutes. "the new york times" has reporters who focus on this particular part of the government of the united states. jim and i crossed paths in 1998 when he joined "the new york times" and before that you were at the "los angeles times."

what we will talk about tonight is a kind of reporting that is unique to the united states. there are very few countries in the world where you are allowed to report on the national security of a country and its national security apparatus. most countries guard their secrets, and what they call the secret part of the government with laws and enforcement so that reporters are generally jailed or news organizations are not allowed to report it, and that includes the united kingdom, canada, and almost any other country you could think of. the united states is one of the few countries in the world that allows that kind of reporting. it began during the 1960's, in

an informal way. it is mostly done by freelancers. then it means that you know seymour hersh, particularly around the pentagon papers. you remember that there was a famous story where a reporter from "the new york times" learn about a pending invasion of cuba that was going to take place in the early 1962 s, that he was called to report in "the new york times." the president of united states said they could not publish that story. they did not. six months later john f. kennedy called "the new york times" said it was too bad we did not you publish that story. 10 years later, with the pentagon papers, and from that a series of other reports in u.s. media that led to a tradition

backed up by congressional hearings that change the nature of the way in which we report and think about national security in this country and the way we as journalists are able to report on it. unfortunately over the last 10 years, that tradition has been moving in the other direction. one of the people who has tried to forcefully and aggressively keep that tradition going is jimting right here, rim r risen. today he told me he had gotten phone calls from some of his lawyers, and a case will be going to trial on oct. 70. that is one of the reasons that this is being videotaped, because there is fear that this -- there is fear that he will

not be around to talk. it could happen. i have to recommend to you the case that jim is going to talk about tonight, although he is restricted -- he feels like he explained to me that he will not be able to fully answer some questions because he may have to testify or what he says may be used in some way against him in the near future. if he says i am sorry i cannot comment on that, that is why, it is not because he does not want to. i recommend to you the indictment in the united states of america vs. jeffrey alexander stirling, who is a former cia official who allegedly was the source of -- is facing criminal trial on october 17. mr. starling is alleged to have told jim about a case involving

a cia operation in the airan. can you talk about that? >> yeah. >> i should explain at the start the part of this book is a story that many of you have heard about, which is the fact that the national security administration on orders from the president of united states began to intercept phone calls, emails, and other communications of u.s. citizens after 9/11, in violation at that time of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, a law passed in 1978. and that this was done on the orders of the president of the united states. it was done secretly. jim and another were authors of a story that got a pulitzer prize for revealing that in the

pages of the "the new york times." [applause] this was actually a year after that actually learned this information. those of you who have been attending the symposium we annually, the logan symposium, that we have questioned bill keller about this, and he said the reason we help this for a year once it was not fully reported. we do know that jim had put that information in this book, which was scheduled to be published two or three months -- >> two weeks. >> after the story was to appear. in terms -- and jim has already

been through a struggle with the bush administration about subpoenas related to that revelation and who was his source. the bush administration dropped that case. obama administration came in. expectation was that the obama administration would not continue this process. they changed their tactical approach. stet of dropping the process, they decided not to commit a grand jury to find out who the sources were, related to the nsa eavesdroping started, but instead chapter 9 of this book, which is about a clandestine operation that failed in iran. therefore, they "the new york times" was not involved in the legal proceedings. jim faced another subpoena on

that issue. before i had the floor over to him not let me just say that when of the more startling things about what is going on is the obama administration currently has five federal grand juries investigating the leaks to the media, in the national security area, including this one, more grand juries and more investigations than all the presence of united states since the passage of espn is back in 1917, and its amendment 1950. it is a phenomenon that most people are not aware of and as of today the consequences of that are something that jim has to live with. [applause]

>> i think lowell just gave my lecture. that was very good. >> i stayed up all last night and read a whole thing. >> what he said was all true, and what i would like to talk about as why i think this is important today and what i think are the ramifications for our society. what happened with this case was i was subpoenaed on this chapter 9, as relates to an operation by a cia in the year 2000 in which cia asked a russian scientist to hand over blueprints of the nuclear weapons to the air around the

ends -- to the iranians. thought that was a good idea to give the i iranians the clear blue prints. they claimed it was a great idea because the blue prints were flawed, and this would throw the iranians off track. when i was told was that the operation was screwed up from the start, was mismanaged, and was reckless, and it almost certainly aided the iranian nuclear weapon program heard it as part of a large chapter in the book about the degree to which i iranian operations by the cia had been mismanaged and had been dysfunctional and that as a result the u.s. intelligence was blind dealing

with the iranian issue of mass destruction issue i was first subpoenaed -- there's a federal grand jury that was empaneled almost immediately after the book came out. the fbi began an investigation and started talking to people over washington to try to find out where my information came from. they began -- and i now low based on documents that have been filed by the government in the case that they got -- they began to be effectively spy on me. they got my phone records, bank records, credit card results, travel records, airline records, emails, and whether or not they were actually wiretapping my

phone in real time, i am not sure. but then i think what shocked the government after they subpoenaed mean was that they got a judge, a federal judge, who disagreed with their decision to come after reporters. i think they expected that every judge in the country would go along with their assault on the press. instead they got a judge who actually in my opinion believes in the first amendment and to eventually quashed the subpoena from the grand jury. then they. quashed two subpoenas from the grand jury and suppressed the third grand jury after they actually indicted somebody in this case. currently, last subpoena against

me to testify was suppressed by the judge, and now the government is currently trying -- has filed a series of motion to get the judge to change her opinion. we are awaiting the results of that. i think the reason this case has been important is that this is the first time, according to my lawyers, they believe, they believe a subpoena in a federal criminal case has federalquashed, and i think that is a very significant thing. i think it could uphold an important tradition in the united states, which was badly damaged since the war on terror began. as you may remember, the plame case led to a whole series of

cases against reporters and to a lengthy battle that led judy miller of the "the new york times" to go to jail. patrick fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, was given independent powers by the attorney general at that time, and he essentially decided that he was not going to recognize a reporter's privilege and began to subpoena reporters all over washington. this was something new that had broke down an unspoken agreement between the press and the government that had lasted about 30 years since the late 1970's. there had been -- an unspoken agreement from about the post- watergate era on, where they would conduct the investigations of stories, but they would never

really do anything about it. it was kind of like that seen casablanca" where they casablanca"round up the usual suspects. we all kind of understood -- let the government know what they are working on and that they would accept more or less what you are doing. that all changed with the plame case, and it was a great of unintended consequence, the libby criminal case, and i know a lot of liberals and progressives do not like to think about the fact that the pressure put on the government to go after judy miller and send her to jail at an enormous cost

to the american press corps, especially the washington press corps. it led to a breakdown of the entire system, this ambiguity that had adopted the system for 30 years disappeared almost overnight. and now the government of both republicans and democrats no longer feel any compulsion about subpoenaeiing report is, sending people to jail for talking to reporters. i think what we are now seen with the obama administration is that this really does cross party lines. at first people thought it was just george borscht, but in fact i think what it shows that anybody in power wants to try to cut down -- wants to control power of information. the like to leak themselves.

the white house leaks more than any other institution in washington, and 80 to people who will write what they want to write. what they do not like is when someone else leaks politically damaging information. so they are trying to essentials closed down the avenues of embarrassing politically inconvenient stories and limit the areas of national security reporting into a kind of excepted box, where they make sure that reporters know that you can only go within these limits. otherwise there will be penalties and consequences. he essentially, that is an

effort in my opinion to create any defacto sense, without having to get congress to approve it, a form of an official secrets act, as a british law that outlaws reporting. if this kind of action is allowed to continue, that is what they will be doing, is going after more and more reporters who write about things that are considered in convene. when they have not been able to do ever in history is ever prove that any story in the newspaper or on television ever truly damaged national security. the fact that the american press has never harmed commission -- never harm american national

security. even in world war ii, where the "chicago tribune" -- this is a classic case where the newspaper wrote a story saying the united nations -- the united states had broken the japanese coast, and franklin roosevelt after is about this case and wanted to prosecute the tribune for espionage. it was probably the right thing to do, because by ignoring it the japanese never read the "chicago tribune." that is probably the closest kids ever come to actually doing potential damage to american national security and it had no effect whatsoever. this thing that bothers me the most about this is that you can tell that they are trying to

impose limits on the freedom of the press. they are very clearly in the filings that they have filed in my case -- they have explained in great detail that they think i went too far, i went across the accepted boundaries, and i wrote things that were out of the accepted boundaries for american national security reporting. the government wants to create for itself the power to decide what is accepted national security reporting and what is not. that in my opinion is unconstitutional. that is why i am fighting this. that is why i think the next week or two be a very critical time to determine which way this goes.those trick

if we could just ask a question we keep going and talking what ever direction you want. >> is the producer present? let me explain that -- as i stayed up last night and read these documents, which are online, and if you want to come up later, we will give you the link, but before we start with the first question, when you say outside the bounds of acceptable practice -- opinion.nment's >> government said and the judge cites in the opinion when she first quahes the subpoena, the government represented the iran story, you and your editors went

to the white house, correct? using to be on a shuttle to the white house. it is only about four blocks from york bureau, to talk to the white house about your story. should we publish this? will it damage national scurvy? there will be a group of people there, and the group in this case on the iran story in chapter 9 included condoleezza rice, understand may be a witness in the trial. as these -- at these meetings, it was made clear to you and your washington bureau chief, who is now the editor at the "the new york times," if you publish this it will damage national security and cost american lives? >> that is one of the

declarations make in the case. >> "the new york times" agreed not to publish a sir. that story still has not been published, it is only available in this book, and the government argues because the "the new york times" did not publish the store, he stepped outside the bounds of acceptable journalism. >> is what i was referring to. the only reason i hesitate about getting into the details of that is because that issue is under current litigation. >> do we have any questions? [unintelligible] >> december 2005, if the "the new york times" knew about it

the year before, there's no question in my mind, did the know before the election, and what would be the results if they had published it before the election? >> did everybody here the question? the question was that "the new york times" published the story in 2005 in 2005, and had been published before the 2004 >> i think everybody involved has thought about that and i think you can go either way. it's hard to tell how the story would effect and election. it might not have had any effect at all. i try not to think about the political impact of this story

when you are writing a because that can drive you crazy. i think you just try to write a story as soon as you can get it in the paper. >> the question here is did it drive you crazy that it didn't get published before the election? >> i was pushing for it to be published. i have said that before. >> thank you very much for speaking with us tonight. do you think you are still under surveillance by the government? are they still investigating you? secondly, how has the government surveillance affected your ability to function as a reporter? >> i think it would be difficult for them to get the legal authority to continue now that the subpoenas have been quashed.

although it is possible. they could have other parallel judicial actions going on that i do not know about. i know that they have thought about -- i know that they did conduct investigations of other chapters of the book that never went to proxies -- never one to prosecution. i don't know whether they're doing surveillance now. >> he called me up one day and said you are in my file. story that's not in the book. >> my lawyers foiaed -- >> a freedom of information act request. >> the first response from the government was we cannot tell you anything about ongoing

investigations. but we will get back to you on closed investigations. about a year or two later, i got this huge envelope from the fbi or the justice department, i don't remember which ones. it was all these old leak investigations they had done including stories that we had done together and it was hilarious to go through them because they were taking them so damn seriously. these -- some of them were stories i could not imagine they were doing week investigations of. we did a good story together, if you remember of the russians by, robert hanson, who have a lot of personal issues. >> the fbi agent who was a russian spy. >> he gave up the fact that the u.s. had dug a tunnel under the

russian embassy in russia and he told the russians about that right away. we had written that in 01? >> before maybe. >> in this file was page after page of investigation of us. >> he did say something earlier that i think is important which i have experienced personally. i have sat at the desk of an fbi official in charge of counterespionage. in the j. edgar hoover building. they are complaining to me -- don't worry about week investigations because every time we have to talk about -- your time we have to talk to a journalist, the attorney general says no, we cannot subpoena a journalist. this was 10 years ago. in fact, in the middle of this

conversation, a gentleman walked into his office who had been here at berkeley at one of our symposiums. he was in charge of actual counterespionage. he lifted the call directory off his boss's desk and said as a leak investigation, i have to check if you have been talking to will bergman, a 5 -- when i am sitting there. so the change is a very dramatic change. the bargain has broken down. >> nobody wanted to admit for 30 years that we had this bargain with the government that they would go to the exercise of do in investigations but there would never do anything about it.

that all changed with the plame case virtually overnight. it it opened the floodgates to prosecutions and investigations and much greater pressure on news organizations from the government. it has had a chilling affect both inside the government on people who might consider being a whistle-blower and it has had an effect on news organizations and reporters here have to keep this on their mind about what is going to happen if you write about certain things. >> remember that the beginnings of national security reporting began during democratic administrations in the early 1960's. they really hated it, the kennedy administration, the johnson administration. and now, the obama administration has actually made

this into an effective means of prosecution of the press or leaders. there are five grand jury cases. >> they've begun -- they've gone beyond the grand jury and had five indictments. >> ending now. >> you speak of the government doing this. the government is not a computer, it's a bunch of guys with careers and agendas. what is the hiing -- highest ranking official that appears against you and how much higher does this have to get to get the authority to do what they're doing? >> subpoena of a reporter has to be approved by the attorney general personally. >> eric holder approved it personally. prior to that, michael mukasey.

i think gonzales did not last long enough to subpoena me. it has to go to the attorney general. the attorney general in my opinion would not do this without the approval of the white house. i think it probably goes to the white house counsel. i'm sure it goes to the to subpoena a reporter for large news organizations with the potential of putting them in jail. on paper, it goes to the attorney general. i think it goes beyond that. >> you document about the need to protect leeks with as far as national security. is that a leading cause in your mind with the failure to pass a

federal shield law? >> yes. a shieldn't know what law is, there has been legislation stuck in congress for several years to get reporters a form of a privilege that would protect them from these kind of subpoenas. the federal shield law has been stuck in the senate. i think it passed the house a couple of years ago. in order to get approval from the white house, even the obama white house, they had to agree to a larger loophole for national security reporting. as it is currently written, the federal shield law would not cover national security reporting. it would cover other kinds of reporting. the problem is the only people who get subpoenaed in washington

are in most cases at the federal level are doing national security reporting. it has basically gutted the shield law. after they gutted the shield law, they let it die in the senate. so they got it and killed at the same time. which is too bad. part of it is the atmosphere in washington since 9/11 has been this traditional balance between liberty and security has gone all boy over to security on every issue. there is no constituency for civil liberties or the first amendment in washington. nobody really cares about reporters and what happens to them.

>> how are your legal expenses handled and how the pick your attorneys? >> my public book publisher, simon and schuster, has handled them for the most part. recently, my lawyers -- it has been going on so long that they have finally agreed to do this pro bono. they have been very stand up about this. they've been very supportive. >> the former u.s. attorney in europe? >> he is a partner -- my lawyers are great lawyers. >> nothing like a free lawyers. >> given what you describe as the atmosphere in congress, is there any activity on the part of publishers, media organizations or reporters organizations to try to put

pressure on or change that atmosphere? >> they have been pushing their shield law, newspapers and other media groups have been trying to get the shield law, but has been stopped -- i don't know if it ever got out of the senate judiciary committee. it was stuck in the committee for a long time. it may have gotten out of committee, but it has been in limbo for a year or two. after they got the compromise on national security reporting, which they thought was going to make a difference in passage, it did not make any difference. >> where is the line in your own mind on when to publish and when not to publish? are there other stories you deem to be important that did not make it into the book because

you decided on your own that it is too dangerous and too much of a threat to our own national security? >> there is always a balancing act that you do in your own mind and you talk to your sources about it. they are difficult decisions. i have had a lot of experience with that over the years because i have covered this stuff. i covered the cia starting in 1995 and i heard all of the explanations from them countless times, about the many stories, they would say don't write this or don't write that. one of my favorite stories that changed my mind about how to accept their version of stories is like the bay of pigs story. in 2000, i think it was, i found

out -- it was 2000 or early 2001, i found out the cia had team of officers in afghanistan trying to work with masoud and the northern alliance to kill osama bin laden. once i found out about it, i called the cia for comment. george tennant, who was then the cia director, called me personally and said do not write that story, you will get my guys killed. i said ok, i will write the story. so i knew didn't write the story and then 9/11 happens. i finally wrote the story after 9/11. but over the next couple of years, as you may remember, one of the big debates in washington was once they created the 9/11 commission and you had the senate-house joint inquiry after that was why didn't the

cia do more prior to 9/11 to get osama bin laden? after going through all of the documents and history on that, i later wondered was that operation the cia doing just a token operation in order to say they were doing something when they really were not doing anything? if i had written about that time, with that have caused a debate to happen in washington about should we get more aggressive or not? i now know that osama bin laden knew all about those guys. he knew everything about him and killed him two days after 9/11 to get him out of the way. that made me think about how much should you listen to them -- obviously you listen to them,

but how much independent thought do you have to bring to these issues and not just accept what the government is saying? that played a big role in how i thought about those issues. >> i'm not a journalist and maybe this is common knowledge to journalists. but in the last 50 to 100 years, what stories can the government put forward has proven to have damaged national security ever? >> they cannot. ever. >> is there anything we would accept as common sense that must have for probably that -- >> i am glad you asked that question because another story i got in 2000, the source who gave me the internal cia history of the iranian tcoup, that the cia

mounted a tutu overthrow the democratically elected leader of iran and we've reinstalled the shop. -- reinstalled the shah. i thought i should read how the "new york times" wrote the pentagon papers story when they got another internal secret history. i thought that must be an amazing story. i went back into the microphone room and read the original pentagon papers stories. i was expecting some shocking revelations. i was stunned. all the story said the war in vietnam is not going very well. [laughter] if you go back and read those stories, it's amazing there was

a supreme court case built around that. it just shows you that it's all about the moment, the anchor of government officials that the moment because set -- the anger of government officials at the moment because something is getting out that they don't want to get out. >> one of the surprising things when you get one of these classified files and you apply for is to see the number of newspaper clippings in a that are classified. >> i will tell you something that is very funny that happened in my case that i can now talk about. about it. k [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> i read a lot of the wikileaks

cables. it was mostly saying prime minister acts is kind of a moron. it's like a cocktail party gossip. >> i know former senior person at the state department that uses wikileaks as a way to help his writing ability. he can -- he has argued to me that people don't understand how good state department people are in their writing ability. their literary ability. >> that was the thing that struck me as a reporter. i said you go and meet embassy officials in some country and day always play dumb with reporters. you ask them questions about the country and they say i didn't know that. but then you think are they really that stupid or are they just plain dumb. the thing about these cables is

it shows they are actually pretty smart. >> my question is do you think journalist's coming after you will have the same fervor you do for the truth? >> i'm no different -- almost every reporter i know would do the same thing i'm doing. i know for a fact that a lot of people, one of the reasons i am doing this is because i'm afraid if i don't that i will disappoint other reporters who -- i'm only doing what people expect me in the profession to do. i don't think it's anything special beyond that. it is kind of in the culture of

journalism that you have to do this. >> i'm wondering if the culture has changed? >> not as far as i know. that's one of the good things about journalism. ,he problem is we don't have without a shield law and without a privilege like a doctor or lawyer, it is difficult, all you have this the cultural tradition within the profession, especially now that the government doesn't recognize it anymore. but that is a strong cultural tradition within the profession. >> what do you make of the increase during the obama administration of the prosecution's and intensity of this?

what is motivating them? especially given that it is unexpected. >> i don't know. i've wondered that myself. i think it is probably pretty simple. whoever is president doesn't like leaks. there executive power is bipartisan. people like executive power and barack obama may be more conservative than we thought. i think he has shown he is essentially continuing a lot of the national security policies of the bush administration across the board. i think this is part of a larger strategy by obama to insulate himself politically on national- security issues from the right by more or less continuing a lot of the national security policies of the bush

administration. why he has been more aggressive than bullish on this -- more aggressive than bush on this, i don't understand. because he's gone beyond what he has to do to insulate himself. >> he did say early on when he is campaigning for president that he thought the eavesdropping policy was illegal. as a constitutional matter. >> but during the 2008 campaign, he voted for immunity for the telecommunications companies who had been involved. that was an important issue in the summer of 2008. there was the fisa reauthorization act that included an amendment to telecommunications group wanted because they were facing a lot

of lawsuits for their involvement in the nsa operation. the senate passed a bill giving them immunity from lawsuits for their involvement in the nsa operation. obama waited till the very last moment to decide which way to vote. he was under enormous pressure from his base and decided to vote for immunity. that was considered by a lot of people to be the first sign of his change of national security issues. >> is it your son -- its striking he's pursuing a lot of investigation -- is it your sense in the washington press corps that it's in line with a way he has run the administration in terms of dealing with the press.

the reporters i talk to, it seems like he is, his staff is very in control of the message and they're very restrictive with access and use that to their advantage. >> i think it is part of a larger view both on national security policy and his view of the press -- i don't think he particularly likes the press in general. which is pretty common for most politicians. most of them hate us. i think he's a much more traditional politician than people thought. >> i always remember a senator on the intelligence committee is saying to me you are the only oversight for the intelligence community. and i said what do you mean, you are the intelligence committee, you are the only oversight. >> do you believe the value of

the information you have released to the public is worth the pressures you face time wise and money wise? >> absolutely. >> do you believe the value of the information is worth the individual consequences you face? >> i do. i thought about it at the time and i think i decided that with the nsa stories and other stories, i decided if i do not write these stories, i should get out of the business because this is what you get in the business to do. if you are not going to do these stories, what are you going to do? these are the best stories you are ever going to get. i thought during that time that this is why i got to be a

reporter. if i'm not going to do it now, i should get out of the business. >> he didn't question your judgment when your editors said we're holding the story? >> sure. i debated it and thought about it a lot. but i decided i had to do it. this was the most important work i've ever done, what was in this book and what was in the "new york times." i felt that way at the time. i felt like this is why i became a reporter. >> thank you very much. from a reporter's point of

view, what did the reorganization of the national security into the homeland security apparatus help in journalistic access? >> debt national security apparatus has grown dramatically. it is just enormous now. it has made it from a -- one of the challenges is trying to figure out what. it's more complicated than it has ever been. if there is some clandestine operation overseas, it's got to be the cia. that's not necessarily the case anymore. it can be a million other people. we now have this enormous growth in contractors, both in the

intelligence community, the defense community and other aspects. there are a lot of secret operations being conducted by outside contractors. where there is virtually no accountability and so the growth of the budget, the growth of the community, the outsourcing of intelligence operations made it far more difficult to keep track of everything. but in some ways, it has made it easier to find people to talk to because there are some anymore people involved then there were before and there is a lot of people who are increasingly uneasy with the size and scale of what is happening. that is where most reporters --

the larger it gets, the more whistle-blowers will come out. that is what the government is afraid of. >> in light of the budget cuts on the federal level, trying to tighten the belt, is it a good story to have that big envelope full of a million dollars worth of research the taxpayers paid for that lead nowhere, to make that it sells a story. another piece of that question is what is the current electorate's rationalization for this money? i'm guessing if you ask americans, at least they are being thorough.

the problem with americans thinking that is they don't realize being thorough takes brains. can americans learned that lesson? >> i don't know. as a reporter, you try to ask specific questions and look into specific stories. one of the things the washington post -- one of the things the "washington post" did a series on the boat and the national security industry. i don't know how you on an ongoing basis keep writing about it all the time without focusing on the specifics. that is what i try to do. find individual cases of things that need to be corrected rather than focus on the larger issues. >> in reading the judge's

decision to quash the subpoena the last time around and knowing what the government has filed, the judge says one of the reasons they don't need to get your full testimony is that they have other witnesses. therefore she quashed the subpoena. as i understand it, the government has come forward and said we used to have other witnesses, but the other route witnesses, one married the defendant and has a spousal exemption and the other is refusing to testify. or recanted their testimony. >> that is their argument. [laughter] that is what is currently being litigated. that's what we are waiting for the judges to decide on. she's about to rule on the motion. >> do you think that is the only

witnesses the government has? >> they have other evidence. we filed -- the government filed a motion along the lines that they are arguing what you just said and we have filed a motion countering their argument, which i don't know if you saw that. it is on file. arguing -- the government's arguments along those lines are specious and the judge should not change your mind. >> a do you think the judge at some point will hold you in contempt? >> i hope not. but we will see. >> a question on the nature of national security reporting. it is a very select field in terms of content.

most americans have no insight whatsoever. the vast majority have left the country and don't have a passport. in covering that field, do you feel as though you have a special sense of responsibility to get the story right and tell a story a particular way so that an audience that may have views about policies generally but has no independent way to verify it one way or the other gets the right story? >> yes. absolutely. one of the problems we have as reporters is we have to deal with a lot of anonymous sources because of the danger sources face in talking to us. so we have to that that material closely because we know we are not going to be naming our sources in our stories.

you have to develop a track record of being accurate. what you are doing as a reader is accepting that the reporter writing that story has a track record of accuracy. you have to develop a level of trust between the reader and a reporter that the anonymous sources he is using or talking about in the story have told him what they said they are telling or that the and formation is accurate. you have to build up a level of trust with the reader overtime. you have to be as accurate as possible. >> you said there were five grand juries now? >> i think there are five

prosecutions of people who are alleged to have leaked to various news organizations. >> of the whistle-blowers not involving the reporters that you know? >> right. i believe that this moment i'm the only reporter in those cases, i'm the only reporter who has actually been subpoenaed. >> do you have any sense if your testimony continues to be quashed whether that will have some effect on the government's continuing interest in not just you but in the law area? >> that's the reason i have fought this. i don't want them to think it's going to be easy to come after reporters because if i just caved in to what they wanted,

they would go after reporters all the time. the only reason they're doing it now is because they got away with it in the plame case. but i think they are afraid to do it on a regular, daily basis. if we start caving, they will. that is one of the things i have been fighting for. to make them know it's going to be damn hard to come after reporters and they should not do it. [applause] >> my question was a follow-up to that. you mentioned remaining keeping it difficult to go after reporters. i wonder if there is an effort to use the force of the press to expose specifically who is behind legislation that restricts and condemns your

reporting? >> its not a secret. it's out in public. >> i guess more of a name -- you had hoover for past restrictions. is there a specific person? >> dianne feinstein has said publicly as the chairperson of the senate intelligence committee that there should not be an exemption in the shield law for national security report. >> and president obama supported the loophole for national security reporting and the justice department supported that. the justice department basically wrote the law to fit that. >> there is an argument that if you cannot do this kind of reporting in almost any other country. that the government has to maintain secrecy, discipline, protect the people.

>> right. >> so, who are you to decide that it is time to make something public when elected officials, and others, take an oath to maintain the secrecy of the information and, because that is what they're told they have to do to make decision -- to make the system function? >> that's the beauty of the constitution. the first amendment allows for freedom of speech for every american. >> but there are restrictions on what that can be, if that speech hurts others. >> that is why you go to court. the personal danger from yelling fire in a theater is different -- which i think is what they would try to argue, that this is

like, somehow. they have never been able to prove, first of all any damage, any real damage from any real story in any publication that i know of -- >> i will give you an example. remember the story about osama bin laden and his satellite phone. >> in the "washington times." >> a more conservative publication. that allegedly damaged the u.s. government possibility to track casaubon modern. >> i have heard that. i also think -- to track osama bin laden. >> i heard that. i also think he got the message went a bunch of cruise missiles rained down on him. i think al is a loud message than the "washington times" story. he changed all of his tradecraft

after the 1998 cruise missile attack by clinton. i know that government has argued that many times. that's one of the cases they can cite. i think the problem is we have a constitutional system that gives freedom of the press and freedom of speech as a fundamental right, it is the first amendment. it's not the second band or the third amendment. it's the first amendment. that was put into place a long time before the 1947 national security act which created the cia. it predates and is a fundamental building block of american journalism. no one likes to admit that an editor and a reporter have in the united states, have the freedom to write what they want.

if we lose that, we lose the uniqueness about the american system. if we start reining in the american press in this way, it is the most fundamental change we can have. >> it's one thing to be able to get the new york times bureau to come in and talk to them and convince and editor not to run a story. it's another thing to deal with julian assange and wikileaks, who actually sat at this table couple of years ago, he did not seem to care whether they identified people in their cables. what should they do in that case? >> it is a more complicated case because you have to get into the issue of who is a journalist, is just the outpouring of data into

the public journalism? is that covered by free-speech when it is done overseas? these are interesting questions, but i still think the legal problem they have is that bradley manning, this alleged source of that information, has been charged with a by-election of his sows -- has been charged with a violation of protecting his both. that is something they can prosecute in a military court. is the fact that gillian assange allegedly received that information -- julien assange, who does not have a u.s. security clearance and to is not u.s. citizen, he received it and put it on the web. is that a crime? i do not believe it is.

under the current existing laws, i believe bradley manning allegedly -- whoever in the u.s. military got that information and leaked it may have violated military laws. it is possible. that will be for a court to decide. the publishers of that information, i don't believe, committed a crime because they were under no obligation to protect that information. >> the question that arises from the last few minutes is is this going to go to the supreme court and can you lose this in the supreme court? there is no official secrets law and this country. will it go to the supreme court? >> one of the things that has

just become clear in the last few days is that the justice department does not appear to be ready to appeal to higher court. it doesn't look like -- they could change their mind, obviously, so it is possible it could go to the supreme court. it depends on the rulings that will come out. we will see. >> is that because of the makeup of the appellate court? >> there have been a lot of obama appointees to the fourth circuit which makes me think obama does not want to test how they would vote on this one. i do not know. it is an interesting issue. i thought for a long time that might, but as of now, i am not sure. >> if you are in jail, how we

help you? >> send cards. [laughter] >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> thank you. >> republican presidential candidates, jon huntsman and mitt romney are in new hampshire today. we will see them during prime time tonight, starting at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. the director of the campaign financial institute was on "washington journal" this morning talking about fund- raising.

guest: the republicans as a whole looks like they are raising between $40,000,000.50000000 dollars. perry is that -- between 40 million dollars and $50 million. perry is at about $17 million. ron paul is at about eight. all of the republicans together will add up to the number that is somewhat lower than president obama on his own. host: what do you read out of these numbers? this is the first fund-raising category for rick perry, why is

that significant? guest: in the first quarter, you should be able to pick up contributions. often the maximum contributions of $2,500 from people who supported you in the past. yet,n't have the details until the files are released next week, but from the early press release from mr. parry's campaign, it does look as if that is what is happening. his total number of contributors was 22,000. that means is average contribution is about 775. that's high for an average. a fair number of people gave the maximum. it is in a state with unlimited political contributions. host: we are looking at the latest campaign numbers. the fec rules say at the end of the third quarter's -- at the

end of the third quarter, candidates have until october 13th to file them and we will find out the official numbers. campaign committees must file reports and disclose receipts and disbursements. some campaigns have given a hint of the numbers coming out. what do you make of rick perry's numbers? some people say this is interesting because it contrasts the fact he has had a rough week or two in the eye of the watchers to look at how debate performances in go and some of his comments about immigration. do these numbers counter that? guest: i do not read these numbers primarily in terms of the horse race. is he slightly ahead of romney this quarter or vice versa? i look at both of these candidates and see candidates who are raising the bulk of their money from people who give the maximum amount and

therefore cannot give again. if the supporters to give the maximum amount want to support some more, they will have to give to these outside committees called super pacs. the leading candidate's funding is very heavily, coming from large dollars. host: that is how politico is analyzing his campaign numbers. what about the others who we have not seen their tallies yet like michele bachmann or newt gingrich. how are they looking? i am assuming if they

want to brag about their numbers, it would have let something out by now. but i want to talk about not anointing the person who has the most. at this 0.4 years ago, the top three republicans fund-raisers for this quarter were mitt romney, rudy guiliani, and fred thompson. if having the most money meant you would win, we would be calling one of them president and we are not. host: if you want to join the conversation, here are the numbers to call. we are talking up the presidential campaign fundraising so far. he mentioned he was in the lead at this time around last election cycle, leading up to

the 2008 race. how do the overall numbers compare? are we talking much longer -- must larger numbers? how are they looking at this point? >> the numbers are looking fairly comparable on the republican side. they were lower on the democratic side when there was a hot race between barack obama and hillary clinton. but these are, by historic terms, on the high side for the third quarter. these candidates will have enough to go through the early rounds. if this is a long haul, and it is possible, it will not be determined by the money, but the money will make it possible. then, i expect to see a significant role played by these outside 527s or super pacs which

can accept unlimited money. host: could you explain that for us? >> it is not a -- guest: it is not a loophole in my opinion. the committees are required to report their end of year fund- raising and spending by january 30th. it states moved their date of, that means they're moving ahead

of the reporting date. there is a time when a ton of money can come in from a super pac and the voters will not know about it. that is problematic. even more problematic is a large amount of money can be spent by what are called 501c organizations. not-for-profit issue advocacy groups. they don't have to file all until the next tax year. it will be a year before we learn about their sources and even then, we don't learn about the sources of their funds if they pass through intermediaries. host: how much do you think that will change the race this year? coming from other organizations and not through the candidates themselves. what are you going to be watching? guest: at this time, we have no idea. but it can be significant.

it can be as much as the others spend. they will worry about the fact that president obama is spending much more than they are. call on ourgo to a democrats line. are you with us? last chance. let's move on to steve, a republican from florida. caller: i just wanted to comment on herman cain. he did not really spend a lot of money down here in florida. but he won the straw poll. the only way we got to see him was on the debates and every now and then he would do a news conference. but for the most part, we never heard about him. but we like his message, so if herman cain, if he had that kind

of money, he could be a contender. thank you. guest: the caller is absolutely correct. the early states to not necessarily require large amounts of money. let's remember that mike huckabee did well in the early stages with very little money. there are two points you can make. one is that a ton of money gives you the opportunity to put your word out, but it doesn't mean people want to listen to what you have to say. the second point is that the audience is small enough, and it is in these early states, then you can get a foothold. once you get a foothold, given the internet and current methods of fund-raising, you can ratchet up pretty fast, so the caller does have a point. host: one of our twitter followers talks about the individual members ron paul has as opposed to rick perry.

he says ron paul has a lot more. talk us through what it means to have more small donors as opposed to big donors? guest: ron paul and michele bachmann are the two republican candidates raising the money from small donors. of course, barack obama has a large number of donors giving small amounts. the nice thing about small boehner is a couple of things. one is you can go back to them because they have not maxed out. second, many of the people who give small amounts are enthusiastic and want to help out but don't have a large amount of money. but they give their time. this becomes the basis for your volunteer network, which is very important, especially in caucus states. in 2008, the entire difference between barack obama and hillary clinton came in caucus states obama carried largely on the

strength of volunteer organizations in those states. host: let's hear from pennsylvania on the democrats' line. caller: i know all this money is going to be spent in my concern is i don't know who is putting that out. is there any way we can require that the ads being run is from exxon mobil, that it shows at the bottom of the screen as opposed to an ad being endorsed or approved by the candidate? >> the united states supreme court said in its decision a year ago, citizens united, that you may not limit the amount of money organizations spend. for independent advertising. but, they up held the ability of congress to require disclosure

and there is no reason congress couldn't require more robust disclosure than they do now. you do not know that it comes from exxon mobil, especially if they give it to the chamber of commerce or some other middle organization. requirethe laws don't it, but they could. the answer to your question is you could know, but it is up to congress. may add another point? congress can within one vote of passing stronger disclosure laws in the last congress. they are not far away. i think people want it, it's just the point they have to make known. host: let's look at president obama and the dnc post third quarter fund-raising. here are the expected numbers -- they are expected to report around $55 million. $86 million in the second

quarter. president obama raised $750 million for the 2008 primary and general elections. guest: these are high numbers. we do not know the breakdown for party fund-raising verses campaign fund-raising. that $86 million in the second quarter, i need to look at something, but it was about half of it was party money. party money has to be spent at least somewhat independently of the candidate, where as the candidate --

party money can come in much larger amounts. if he is raising mostly party money, it tells me he is getting a lot of money from people who are giving $50,000 as opposed to $50. >> my name is brian johnson. it has been a great show so far. my question for you is, at what point does it no longer become responsible when you are talking about president obama raising close to $1 billion for his upcoming campaign? about what it means to have more

small donors then you have a 9% unemployment rate and people overall are not doing that great. at what point does it become irresponsible to earn that much money? guest: the caller is asking a good question. why do candidates raise and spend so much? certainly an incumbent president is fully known to the public. it is impossible to say of this point what these outside spending groups may do. many candidates are raising money looking over one shoulder wondering what is coming up behind them. i am sure that is true not just of president obama but of many members of congress. in the last election when the president spent three-quarters of a billion that medvedev organizations in all 50 states, then-senator obama. i assume he could do something like that again. it is up to the voters to decide whether you think it is

irresponsible use of money. host: matt writes this on twitter. guest: they have to have a 4-2 go to decided that a broken the law. and it usually takes some time, well after a campaign, before they impose a penalty. so this has not been seen as a strong deterrent by many candidates. then iif it divides on the tradition of a lot or the bulls and it has a 3-3 division, then there's no decision, no

complaint filed and essentially the candidate is free. host: let's go to ed, democratic caller in michigan. caller: i would like to say that this goes way back to the reagan administration. james baker, comes from a big oil company in texas, his cabinet went to texas and the secretary of commerce for busch 41. the cabinet went to texas and this data $100,000 arrangements. -- they set up $100,000 arrangements. then you hear exxon paid no income tax in 2009 or 2010. that enabled bush 41 to come in, whose closest friends were

oil people. if it were not for that, we would never had the economy ruined. the american people not knowing the effects of big oil and this government, they own the republican party and they will not let them tax the companies, which is the richest corporation on earth. this should be all over the media. thank you. guest: the caller is correct in some of things. i want to make a correction, because there is an interesting distinction. mr. baker was raising money for george h. w. bush and the texas rangers wre for george w. bush.

ronald reagan was the candidate who most depended on small contributions before this d -- most successful before barack obama. he was the one candidate who received the maximum amount of public funds in our history, because he had so many small donors. ronald reagan would never have been president if it were not for public financing of elections. he was running as a challenger and was flat broke in january of 1976.

because he got public funds, he was able to make a credible race against an incumbent, gerald ford, and became the frontrunner for 1980. ronald reagan is almost a poster boy for why a public financing system can be important and why we ought to be looking at a system in which several of small donors is multiplied through matching funds rather than simply letting maxed out donors and unlimited super pac's be the main sources of funding. host: during the governor chris christie does not plan to run for president. alaska governor sarah palin says she does not plan to run -- former governor. do any candidates benefit financially from these two setting that they are out of the race, out of consideration to be in a race? do you see a shift in donors? home depot co-founder has now said that he will endorse mitt romney. guest: yes, as soon as governor

chris christie decided, all the people who were backing and started getting phone calls from mitt romney and rick perry's caps. -- camps. sarah palin would have been competing for the slot that rick perry has fully occupied by now, i think. so, this may -- or maybe a third candidate to newcomers -- candidate who shows well in the early states, but it will come from the candidates already in the field. we will see what happens with herman cain and ron paul. there's no question about who the front runners are. host: would sarah palin have to pay back to the people who donated?

guest: a political action committee and is a multi- candidate committee that supports other candidates. it does not support the campaign of that person. she is under no obligation. a person who gave to a pac on the expectation it would go to someone's campaign was making a mistake. host: lapel let's go to the elmira, new york. caller: what happens to all the money candidates made if they do not? nost: there's almost campaign that at the end of the day is left with much money in the bank. many of them are in debt by the end of the day. a couple of campaigns have had some left over such as john kerry, who in 2004 decided to take public funds.

he was able to give the money to the political party. candidates can give unlimited amounts to the party. they save some money because they're bound to have ongoing legal and accounting costs. they can give limited amount of other candidates. the bulk will probably go to the party. host: looking at this story, judd gregg is giving his support to mitt romney. i am looking at a story on the cnn political tinker -- ticker. how significant of these endorsements when it comes to fund-raising?

guest: i think endorsements are significant on the ground particularly in the home state of the people involved. the two gentlemen mentioned have very good strong reputations in their home states. that will matter. it would matter less in the fund-raising. host: thank you so much for joining us this morning. talking with us about campaign fundraising for the presidential race so far. michael malbin, professor at the state university of new york, albany. thank you, sir. guest: my pleasure. >> republican presidential candidates spoke friday at the value voter summit in washington d.c. remarks from rick santorum and former house speaker newt gingrich.

>> thank you. thank you very much, friends, and i really do mean friends. it is great to be back here at the value voter summit. i am here every year because i am a value bogor, and i believe in the things you believe then. it is an honor to be here. i am here with the family today. i wanted to mention my wife karen. we have seven children that we are raising. thank you. [applause] a just want to share allow inside with you. one of the things i always tell people, when you are looking at someone to determine if they are the right person for public office, look at who they lay down with that knight and what they believe. this is the person at their side it has the closest counselor to that person? if you want to find out whether that person who you are going to be voting for is going to stand tall and stand tough, find out

where the spouse of that person is. i will tell you, there is no one who is more strongly committed to the values of the people in this room, and who has a track record, having written books about it and having been electorate across this country on the issues of life and marriage and family and my wife, karen santorum. i am honored that she is going to be here today and she is going to spend a whole weekend with you. we want you to know that we are part of the family. i have never put social and values issues on the back burner. i have been out there fighting and leading the charge here in washington d.c. [applause]

we fought together and we change the country. we forget about that sometimes. i know the frustration people have about these issues, but let's go back to the late 1990's and the issue a partial birth abortion. that issue, as much as we thought it and failed, we kept failing, but guess what was happening? year after year after year, on the front page of the new york times and the washington post, on television shows will talking about the issue of life. for the first time, the issue of life and the issue a partial birth abortion brought to the reality that the toys was a little baby creek in a partial birth abortion, you could not miss the baby. it was in the doctor's hand. it would otherwise be born alive, and guess what happened? thanks be to god, attitudes on abortion for the first time in this country changed. he looked at by young people in this country are more pro-life

than previous generations. it is because for the first time, we worked together and brought forth an issue that put a human face on the issue of abortion. it actually changed people's attitudes in congress. i will share a story with you from the 1998 debate. we had been debating this issue for four years, and opposite me is barbara boxer. it is an epic battle. in walks patrick leahy from vermont. he walks up to me and says i want 20 minutes of your son b.j. 20 minutes of your time. he has voted against this bill and spoken against this bill. -- he says i want 20 minutes of your time. he said either give me 20 minutes of your time or i am turning around and voting against you. i said take 25.

after four years of arguing this bill, of laying out my heart and soul on the floor of the senate, he stood there and in a paint- and -- pained fashion, finally admitted that the arguments i was making were just too overwhelming to resist. and he voted with us. [applause] people are saying where is the leadership in washington? why can we not get together? you bring truth and honesty, authenticity to this office, and people will see it. that may not always agree, but you will bring people because you are not trying to castigate people, or split and divide the country. karen and i home school our children.

[applause] i am a teacher. i am a leader, but i am a teacher. the best way to bring people together is to find that common foundation of knowledge from which you can pull people together. we have done that. we passed the defense of marriage act, not a negative vote. it was put into place, and now look at what is going on with dolma. we ended a federal entitlement to welfare. we ended income payments. we put time limits on welfare. we put worker garment on welfare, and in spite of bill clinton vetoing it twice, he eventually signed it. why? because it made a compelling arguments to the american public, and he was afraid prior to his election he would lose the election if he did not do

what the people wanted, what we had been communicating. did we sacrifice our principles? no, we motivated the public behind our principles. look at the track record we have been able to put together. as value voters to recognize that party is not a disability, but is a temporary condition and we believe in the value and integrity of every human life that they can achieve and succeed in america given the opportunity. that is what america is all about. on national security, believe it or not, the two major pieces of legislation that were just describing dealing with the state of israel, one dealing with their arch nemesis, syria, and one dealing with iran, both were opposed by president bush. both were eventually signed by president bush. i was able to get democratic sponsors. i could not democratic sponsors are republicans on either of

these bills, but i kept working, and that passed overwhelmingly. why? because we continue to go out and teach and lead. that is what we need in this time in this country, someone who can have principles and yet lead this country. now look where we are. the defense of marriage act, the president of the united states will not even defended the law in court. an abomination, and worse than that, just recently, he has instructed his military chaplain to marry people in direct contravention, married gays and lesbians, in direct contravention to the defense of marriage act, which defines marriage in federal law as between a man and a woman. not only with the president not defend the law, he has instructed people in the military to break the law. we need someone who can go out and lead and educate america and lead america at this very vital time. look at welfare.

food stamps are at the highest level in other -- the highest level ever. we were able to change that. remember, believing in people. and of course, the state of israel. this president has done more to destroy the bonds between israel and the united states than any president in our history. he has isolated israel. he has brought contempt for israel to the point where even encouraged a year ago that the palestinian authority should bring a resolution to the united nations and then had to feebly be toys -- feebly veto it. ladies and gentlemen, we are at a critical time, morally, economically, and from a national security point of view. we need a leader with experience who can get the job done, who can motivate people, who can

leave in a very clear and authentic direction, who has a track record of standing up and fighting for those battles and winning those battles. together, we can reignite this economy. another is a plan out there that is the9-9-9 plan. i have a better plan, it is the 0-0-0 plan. one of the great problems in our economy, and there is truth in it, the middle of america has started to disappear. middle income america. why? because of manufacturing jobs. 21% of the people working in this country and i was growing up were involved in manufacturing. now it is 9%. zero corporate income tax on any manufacturer or processor in

this country. because those manufacturing jobs left this country, there is $1.20 trillion in corporate profit sitting all over the world that will come back because of taxes. zero corporate tax on all that money brought back it invested in plant and equipment in this country. we will create a huge boom with $1.20 trillion of investment in building plants and purchasing equipment in this country. we will zero out and repeal every single regulation the obama administration has put in place. that is $100 billion to business and more. [applause] we need a president who believes in free people and free markets. that is the basis of our society, the basis of our economy. it is a moral enterprise that is america. our declaration of independence says we hold these truths to be

self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. our rights come from the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob. [applause] and god did not give us those rights. our founders did not recognize the rights as we can do whatever we want. there are laws that we have to live by. we have a responsibility that comes with those rights. our founders laid it out and said life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. look up the definition of happiness at the time of our founders. to use liberty to pursue the

morally right thing. why? because our founders understood that true happiness can only be found in doing what god's will is in our lives. that is true happiness. america at its foundation was a country that said we will believe in people who are nurtured by family and a to live lives freely in conformity with god's law to help ourselves, our family of our community, and our country. guess what? it worked. we changed not just america, we changed the world. that is what we have to get back to. that is the foundation. people talk about economic plans. can i have a strong economy unless we have strong families and strong faith in this country. [applause]

people talk about -- the moral issues have taken a back seat because people do not understand how moral issues are absolutely essential for the economic success of this country. or percentage of families that have two parents heading that family are in poverty in america? 5%. what percentage of single head of household families are in poverty in america? 30%. you want to have a successful economy? the single thing you can do is to nurture and support the institution of marriage, and fathers taking responsibility for their children, building that solid foundation upon which society rests. [applause] that means standing up and defending the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman, not backing away from it. standing up for it.

there is one candidate in this race who has gone to state after state to help fight those battles, not just for the federal marriage amendment, but understanding that what the left is trying to accomplish in marriage is what they did with abortion. pick up a few states, but the courses they cannot have different laws on the issue of marriage, and then have the courts decide. we must fight in every state to make sure that marriage remains as between one man and one woman, and as president, i will do that. [applause] the final issue is national security. national security is an issue that i know a lot about. we have seen with this president, experience matters. when that phone call comes at

3:00 in the morning, i will be up and waiting for the call, because i will know what is going on in the world around us. you won't have to get me out of bed. [applause] experience is eight years on the armed services committee, and transforming the military. i get all the moral cultural questions. bring it on. don't you want a president that is comfortable in their shoes, talking about these issues? don't you wonder president who by virtue of the fact of who they are -- you see, that is the difference here. i want to bring out karen and the kids for just a minute and share a story. [applause]

thank you. being president is not just about passing laws, folks. it is about leading. one of the things i learned when i was the united states center, one of the greatest things you have in power is the power to convene, the power to talk about something and have people have to listen because you are in a position where people write about it. how many conversations have we had over the past couple of weeks talking about class warfare, talking about millionaires and billionaires and pitting one group against

another actor kitchen table. the president, by talking about it, can really lead. we have seven children in our family. we have a little girl who is not here with us who is 3 years old, who is a miracle to be alive. the world would look at her and say special needs child, a disabled child, but she is the most able of all my children, because she is pure love. she is a little girl who should not be here. all the textbooks say she should have been gone from us years ago, but we loved her. she is the center of our home. we care for her, and she is, in fact, the joy of our lives. imagine the example of this disabled child being that like for people to see the value of every child of god in our world. it is by example that you leave. we have the opportunity to have

a debate about things just by talking about the family, talking about life. if you want to know whether i am going to stand there and be tough on the issues that we all care about, let me just share a story with you. some of you may remember the debate in 1996 on partial birth abortion. it was the debate where we were going back and for on this issue of having this procedure available late in pregnancy, when the pregnancy would have gone awry. that does not mean the help of the mother was in jeopardy, it was the help of the baby pig mothers decided late in pregnancy that the baby they were expecting was not anymore the baby they wanted because of a disability. i will never forget dianne feinstein getting up and talking about how this procedure had to be available because children might be born with no eyes or ears or legs, and as a result,

they should be killed. i got up and said, you know, karen is pregnant with our fourth child, and we have a sonogram in a week. imagine what are you saying to me, that if i would go in there and find out that maybe something was wrong, what would i think my reaction should be, to terminate the pregnancy, to kill our child because he or she has a disability? we continue to fight that battle, and a week later, we had that sonogram. the doctor looked over at karen and me and said research and has a fatal defect and is going to die. we were stunned, we were angry, but mostly we just cried. but we did not give up. we did not in his life. we gave him a name that very day, gabriel michael, and we

fought for his life. we even had surgery done to save his life, and it worked. but then karen got an infection and went into labor and deliver our son, gabriel michael. he lived for two hours in our arms. he had a very short life, but he had a life that you only love. at the end of that, karen went on and continue to write. she always kept a diary of all our children. she wrote about gabriel through this difficult time and afterward. her mother encouraged her to publish those letters. that little books sold 25,000 copies, more than the book i published, by the way. karen wrote a second book that also sold more than my book. [laughter]

so we have this book that even today, people come up to me and say thank you, thank karen for sharing her story. it save the life of our child, or it helped us heal. i want to share with you a little miracle. one of the things we struggled with when we lost gabriel is -- it was the first year, 1996, that i had ever spoken a word on the issue of abortion on the floor of the senate. i represented a tough state. the last thing i needed to do was go out and talk about abortion. but i felt compelled and called to do it. my answer was, god would take my child right after that. something happened during that debate which are reflected on, and karen did at the end of her book. i will share with you so you understand how deeply rooted these issues are in our life.

this is from her book, "letters to gabriel." the center was thanking women who had partial birth abortions for coming forward with their stories. there was a group of women who had -- who would intercept members and tried to lobby them to defeat this bill. boxer said they are crying because they don't understand how senators could take away an option. they are crying because they do not believe that the senators truly understand what this meant for their families. karen continues, daddy said in response, the senator said she hears the cries of the women outside this chamber. we would be deffenbaugh the cries of the children who were not here to cry because of this procedure. the washington post described what happened next. rick santorum turn to face the opposition and cried out, where

do we draw the line? some have likened this procedure to an appendectomy. that is not an appendix, he shouted, pointing to the drawing of a fetus next to him. it is a baby. the post continued, and then impossibly, in an already hushed dowry, and one of those moments when the floor of the senate looks like a stage set with a small wooden desks, somehow too small for the matters at hand, the crybaby pierced the room. echoing across the chamber from the outside hallway. no one mentioned the cry, but for a few seconds, no one spoke at all. a coincidence? perhaps. a visitor's baby was crying just as the door to the senate was opened and then closed.

or maybe it was the cry from the son whose voice we never heard, but whose life has changed ours forever. ladies and gentlemen, i am committed. we are committed to the cause of life and family and american exception lissome. please join me in that fight. thank you, and god bless you. [applause] ♪

>> you are here at a historic moment. i think this is the first time in american history that two jordan's running for president have been back to back talking to an all audience. i was just comparing notes with hermann offstage. the elite media said several weeks ago this is not a to- person race. herman and i decided it may be right, but they had the wrong two people. it is kind of interesting that the two guys that have gotten the most money have lost the most votes, and the two guys

with the most ideas have gained the most votes. that might convince the elite media that maybe there is more to politics than fund-raising and consultants, and maybe having a heart and brain actually matters a lot. [applause] i think we are in a period of enormous challenge. i think part of that challenge is barack obama, but frankly it is much deeper. we have bureaucracies out of control. we have judges who do not understand the constitution. we have teachers who don't believe in american history. we have an elite media which has no understanding of the origins of the united states and the nature of american civilization. so we have a lot of work to do. recently released, and you can see at at newt.org, a 21st

century contract with america. it outlines of a legislative program and a first day program, a very specific executive order. that give you an example. imagine about 3:30 or 3:45 on inauguration day, the inaugural address is over. we take about an hour and half and we start signing between 50 and 200 orders giving the government always from obama and back toward the american tradition. [applause] we will release all the executive orders by october 1 next year, so it will all be part of the closing months of the campaign. if the president says he is for one of them, we will print it out and he can sign it.

i don't know what all of them will be, but i can tell you what the first one will be. around 4:00 on the afternoon of the inauguration, about the time that president obama gets to andrews air force base to get on air force one to go back to chicago, i will sign executive order number one, which will abolish as a that moment everyone else -- every white house czar. i wanted to come today to talk about a historic crisis that only indirectly related to the president. abraham lincoln said, if you debate somebody who does not agree that two plus two equals four, you probably cannot win

the argument, because facts make no difference. i want to start with that example. imagine that by a 5-4 vote, the supreme court decided that two plus two equals five. under the current theory, which the warren court promulgated in 1948, the only effective recourse would be either to get a future supreme court to reverse it, or to pass a constitutional amendment declaring that two plus two equals four. i want you to think about the absurdity of this. do any of you seriously believe that five appointed lawyers deciding to plus two equals five, and the rest of us would probably change our school textbooks, change our accounting systems? that could well explain obama's budgeting system, but obviously this is observed.

it cannot possibly be true that the founding fathers wrote into the constitution a very elaborate, complex process of amending the constitution and said however, if the supreme court is split 4-4 between liberals and conservatives, and justice kennedy gets up in the morning, he becomes a one person constitutional convention. if he gets up and feels liberal that day, it must be a liberal constitution. this is an absurdity foisted us -- on us in 1958. there is no judicial supremacy. does not exist in the american constitution. let me be clear. judicial supremacy is factually wrong. it is morally wrong, and it is

an affront to the american system of self-government. [applause] one of the major reasons that i am running for president of the united states is the ninth circuit court decision in 2002 that one nation under god in the pledge of allegiance was unconstitutional. that decision had the same effect that the dread scott decision extending slavery to the whole country had on abraham lincoln. i thought if an american appeals court could be so radically out of touch with america, it could seek to block children from st. one nation under god as part of their description of america, that we had come to the point where we needed a constitutional crisis to reassert their judicial broad to teach the

judiciary that they cannot be anti-american and expect us to tolerate them radically changing our society by judicial dictate. [applause] what i am saying to you is in the best tradition of the american revolution. read the declaration of independence. a very large number of its but it -- specific charges against great britain in of dictatorial judges. the founding fathers deeply distrusted judges and thought that the lawyer class was dangerous and that you could not give them an unbridled power, or they would undermine and destroy free society. this is not some marginal position. thomas jefferson asked about judicial supremacy. he said that is an absurdity. that would be an oligarchy. so i think we are faced with one

of the great crossroads of american life. if judges think they are not challenge of all, they are inevitably corrupted in a moral sense. i don't mean taking money, but in the sense of arrogance, in a sense of imposing on the rest of us, whether one judge in california deciding he knows more than 8 million californians about the definition of marriage. whether the judge in san antonio who rules that not only can schoolchildren not say a prayer at their graduation, they cannot use the word benediction, the word invocation, the word god, they cannot ask the audience to stand, and if they do any of these things, he will lock up their superintendent. the idea of an american judge becoming a dictator of words is so alien to our traditions and such a violation of our constitution that that

particular judge should be removed from office summarily. [applause] lord acton warned in the 19th century that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. records in the last 53 years have proven that he was right. in each passing decade, the judges have become more hostile to the american tradition. then out openly talk about using foreign sources of information because the american constitution is so old and antiquated. a justice who believes that should not be serving on the american dance. -- on the american bench.

we have a very link the paper, years of effort by a number of us, which we have published this afternoon at newt.org. outlined step-by-step help profoundly anti-american the current judicial model is that is taught in virtually every law school in this country. it is profoundly wrong. one of the major impediments and threats to democracy today is the very behavior of the law schools which teach usurpation of power in a way that is utterly unsustainable. the founding fathers designed our constitution based on the concept of the balance of power. we are supposed to have three coequal branches. there can be no supremacy if there are three coequal branches, by a deposition -- by definition. if you read hamilton in the federalist papers, he says the

courts cannot possibly take on the legislative and executive branch because they would inevitably lose. what did he mean by that? this is one of the most important things we will explore over the next year. because this is a more complicated topic and a 30- second answer during the game show version of a presidential debate, as the republican nominee, in my acceptance speech i would challenge the president to seven lincoln- douglas style three-hour debates with the timekeeper and no moderator. [applause] one of those debates should be on the declaration of independence, the constitution, the federalist papers, and that nature of the american

judiciary. [applause] jefferson is the most clear example of taking on the judiciary, and the judicial reform act of 18 02. the jeffersonian eliminated 18 out of 35 federal judges. they just abolish to their offices and told them to go home. let me be clear. i am not as bold as jefferson. i think the judge in san antonio would be an important initial signal and i think the ninth circuit court should be served notice that runs the risk of ceasing to exist. jackson in tackling the bank of the united states, which he said was a centralized form a power -- think of it as the earlier bernanke. he was told the supreme court has said it is constitutional. he said fine, that is their

opinion. he said i have a different opinion. they get their opinion in court. i get my opinion in the white house. lincoln explains why the dred scott maybe the law of the case, but cannot be the law of the land. he resources to -- refuses to enforce the law while he is president. as nancy pelosi once said, if the court speaks, it is as though god has spoken. having someone from her branch of the party recognize god is an important step in the right direction. on the issue of god and american public life, the country created because we are endowed by our creator. the courts have been historically wrong since the late 1940's and have gotten

worse and worse, more and more anti-religious, and more and more hostile. in the question of national security, in the last few years, the courts have become virtually out of touch with reality. the idea that the courts are now going to take on responsibility for defending the united states is a clear and fundamental violation of the constitution and a fundamental violation of the executive branch's power, and the congress should pass a lot repudiating every interference in the course of national security issues and returning them to the congress and the president whether rightly belong. -- where they rightly belong. on abortion, the courts are wavering over the place. this started with the stupid fish -- decision over here and have modified it twice since then. maybe we should explore very seriously whether we could use the 14th amendment to define life in a congressional statute

and insist that that be the law of the land. i think it is something we should look at very, very seriously. [applause] on marriage, it should be quite clear on issues like the defense of mayor jack, we should simply say it cannot be repealed. congress can decide what can be appealed. -- the defense of marriage act. they said we want to establish a fact on the ground before you get to hear it. this is clearly written in the constitution. i mentioned at jefferson, but there are other steps that are short of what not have the judges. one, we can hold hearings. for congress to bring in judge

barry from san antonio and stayed to him, explain to us your rationale. by what right will you dictate speech to the american people? how can you possibly take your court order and the first amendment entellus this is about free speech? judges who knew that when they were radically wrong would be hauled in front of congress. they would immediately have a sobering effect about how much power they have. second, presidents can follow the precedent of lincoln. i would instruct the national security officials of the gingrich administration to ignore the recent decisions of the supreme court on national- security matters, and i would interpose the presidency and say as the commander-in-chief, we will not enforce this. for liberal friends, the source of that is franklin delano roosevelt.

in 1942, a group of german saboteurs landed in florida and long island and rolle picked up within two weeks. roosevelt brought in his attorney general and said they will be tried in a military court and executed. it should happen within three weeks. i will not honor a writ of habeas corpus, and so they should not honor it. i am the commander in chief in wartime, they are not. [applause] congress has the power to limit the appeals, and congress can cut budgets. congress can say the ninth circuit can meet in the future, but it will have no clerks. we are not going to pay the electric bill for two years, and you don't seem to need your law library, either. i am paraphrasing hamilton in

the federalist papers in which he is defending it he says flatly, the judiciary is the weakest of the three branches. this modern model is totally opposite the american tradition. [applause] i am only an outline for you item 9 of the legislative part of the 21st century contract with america. you can tell just from this, the struggle we are going to have with the lawyer class over shrinking their power and their dreams of being the people who dictate to america how we should behave, just in that one zone, imagine how big this conflict will be. you have other zones. how do we create jobs? how do we get the national labor relations board under control so it is not attacking boeing and

other job creators? how do we replace an environmental solutions agency with common sense, cooperation, and taking into account the economy? how we control the border by january 1, 2014. it can do that by passing a law in 2013 that says we are suspending any regulation or law that would inhibit us from the national security act of securing our border. get it done now. [applause] each of these steps will be met with substantial resistance by the reactionary forces who had dreams of creating a radically different america. each of the steps has to win if we are going to give our children and grandchildren the free, said, and prosperous country that our children and

grandchildren -- that our parents and grandparents gave us. i came here today because i think this is going to be a tremendous struggle. i did not come here to ask you to be for me. if you are for meet you are going to vote and go home and say i sure hope newt does it. no one person can do this. under our constitution, the president can lead the american people in educating the congress and changing things. if we shrink the power of washington by applying the 10th amendment, we have to grow citizens back home to fill the vacuum. [applause] so i came today to take this opportunity to outline for you one of the great, historic decisions we will make over the next few years. whether we take back the courts, we rebalance the constitution, we insist on

judges who understand the constitution, and i can promise you in a gingrich administration, only people who are dedicated to the original document and its original meaning will get any court appointment at any level. [applause] let me just close and say to all of you, i am here to ask you to be with me, to ask you to be with me for eight years, to ask you to stand side by side to make sure that we once again reclaim america from the forces of socialism, from the forces of class warfare, from the forces of secularism, from the forces that would try to get us to not teach our children about the history of this great country.

if you will be with me, together we will decisively defeat barack obama, we will defeat the democrats in the senate, and over the next few years, we will decisively reclaim america as the land of the free and home of the brave. thank you, good luck, and god bless you. [applause] >> on c-span tonight, republican presidential candidate and former u.s. ambassador to china jon huntsman lays out his foreign policy priorities. then remarks from army secretary john mchugh. later we will hear from james risen who has refused to testify in front of two grand juries investigating