delighted but not surprised by the final repeal of the 18th amendment. i have said all along that when this matter was properly submitted to the rank and file of our people, they would readily see that it had no place in our constitution. >> he served as governor of new york four times, though he never attended high school or college. in 1928, al smith became the first catholic nominated by major party to run for president. he is remembered to this day by the alfred e. smith memorial dinner, an annual fund-raiser for various catholic charities, and stop for the two main presidential candidates every eight presidential election year. he is featured in our new weekly series, the contenders. >> jon huntsman talks about his foreign policy plan. the former u.s. ambassador to china spoke at southern new

hampshire university. this is sponsored by the world affairs council of new hampshire. this is about an hour. >> good morning, everyone, and we are pleased that you are here for a foreign policy conversation with candidates today. our mission is to promote understanding of world affairs around the and i did states, and that goal is never more critical than any presidential primary year. in the last election more than 10% americans considered foreign-policy when of voting. it is now a national initiative of the world affairs council to

engage american in the most pressing national security issues facing our country. here at the council of new hampshire, we hope by offering a platform for candidates and the public to discuss foreign policy voters will be better educated on how global issues affect their lives. to find out more about our program, visit our web site. to begin our program, i am honored to welcome former governor tom ridge of pennsylvania. please join me in welcoming governor ridge. [applause] >> thank you very much for that very warm and gracious reception on such a beautiful day in this beautiful state. thank you very much. i have spent most of my life in public service, and i have looked at the years that i was getting a government paycheck.

i remember the 12 years i spent in washington, d.c., as a congressman, and six of those 12 years occurred when ronald reagan was president. i remember america in 1981 and 1982, the economy was suffering. the notion was we still have to cut taxes, we still had to stay the course. from that moment, the difficult and challenging election, the economy got stronger and we became even more engaged in the rest of the world under the president's leadership. as they took a look around at the potential republican candidates, and there are some fine people running, i said, who in this field of men and women is the cooked with the s -- is equipped with the spirits and the mindset to deal with the

economic strength at home and protecting america's authority and influence in a very positive way around the world? i decided a long time ago that the man that had served as governor, businessmen, and served as ambassador in a critical part of the world, singapore and china. a lot of the trends today are alarming. we have political isolation, this engaging us from the rest of the world, and yours truly and governor huntsman says in the 21st century we will not surrender in any way. we will not withdraw from those responsibilities, but will accept them differently. a look -- you cut taxes, you streamline

government, you make it accountable, and you still have to understand there are people out there that need your help. that intersection of projecting economic strength and the ability to project our values, not just military, but our values -- america has a brand. the brand is our the new system. part of that brand is we know how to create jobs because it cannot be secure unless you are prosperous. and so for the political isolationists, we theno, the protectionists, we say no. 190 countries out there are to markets for us. this country needs someone who understands that they intersect. they do not collide. you build the economy at home, you project your influence and your dahlias system overseas. that is the ronald reagan way. that is what we did 20 or 30

years ago. we've lost that. i frankly think that my party and my country needs governor huntsman to be president. he understands they are linked. he understands how to project them. he understands there is peace through strength. for that reason, i am pleased to be with my friend governor huntsman today to reassert publicly my admiration for his experience and my confidence in his ability to lead this country to some challenging times in the years ahead. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. not to begin our program, i would also to introduce the dean of southern new hampshire university, the school business. dean william gillet, and it sank

southern new hampshire university for helping us present this program today. please join me in welcoming dean gillet. >> thank you. on behalf of the university, i would like to welcome governor huntsman back to the state and university and to thank him for his remarks to our graduating students last may. as he brings his international expertise to bear, in setting out his vision for our country's for paulson, it is fitting he chose an american university as a backdrop. ira education in the united states remains the world -- higher education in the united states remains the world's gold standard. new hampshire has a strong

tradition in reaching out to the international sphere and fostering understanding from students around the globe. we host the world affairs council of new hampshire, and it's excellent program to understand international affairs and state. as a former ambassador to china, the governor has unmatched experience in the international sphere and has had a vantage point of representing united states in china in dealing with the chinese government. he brings to the process a aluable perspective. we are privileged to welcome governor huntsman to our campus. [applause] >> thank you very much, and

thank you for your leadership and willingness to host this event today. the governor tom ridge, my great friend, someone who i admire, one of the big great public servants of my generation. hand to the ambassador who is also here. it is an honor to be here with you. atives,te represented and my great friend who does a much for veterans, it is an honor to be here. it is my second time to be here. i am reminded of the chance to get a second show great institution. i am reminded of a bit of it to change that place between churchill and shaw.

george bernard shaw was opening for the play "," and he sent in addition to churchill. please. two tickets for the opening night at night. one for you and one for a friend, if you have one. churchill wrote back and said the to the press of business, i cannot attend the first show, but would be delighted to attend the second show, if there is one. you have given me a second show, and i am grateful. approach tot's foreign affairs, how they view the world, is perhaps the most critical function of that sacred office.

this has been true throughout our history, whether it was truman, in the dawn of the atomic age, kennedy in the cuban missile crisis, reagan and the soviet union. but it has never been more critical than today. we are a nation mired in multiple military entanglements overseas, and in the grips of an economic crisis at home. these are tumultuous times, not just for our nation, but all nations. instability in the least, that crises across europe, and the looming threat of nuclear proliferation. the world needs american leadership now more than ever. yet we are struggling to provide it. president obama's policy is have weakened america, and thus diminish america's present some

on the global stage. we must correct our course. i have lived overseas four time is. i have seen the world as a diplomat, serving three times as the united states ambassador. i have seen it as a businessman. i have seen it as a humanitarian. i have lived and seen what are most significant competitor nations are due to prepare for the rest of the 21st century, and i have a very clear vision of what america must do as well. i believe the united states has a generational opportunity to redefine its place in the world and reclaim the mantle of global leadership. my administration's approach to foreign affairs will be guided by that which defines the american exceptional listen. and that is our values. liberty, democracy, human rights, free markets. america's use our america's best

gift to humanity. to this nation who share our values, and who we call our friends and allies, we will restore trust and strengthen our bonds, both economically and militarily. to those nations to continue to resist the unstoppable march of human, political, and economic freedom, we will make clear that they are on the wrong side of history, by ensuring that america, america's light shines bright in every corner of globe, representing a beacon of hope and inspiration. we will establish a foreign policy doctrine that reflects a pleaern world, advocating more ships, troops, and weapons not a viable path forward. we need more agility, or

intelligence, and more economic engagement with the world. so how will we do this? in short, erase the old map and nation-building, engaged our allies and fix our core. this is how we will fight the enemy we have and redo mayor and exceptional listen. i would like to discuss the planks which will comprise might foreign-policy. number one, first and foremost about we must rebuild america's core. at this critical junction, our nation's greatest challenge is not -- does not emanate from outside our borders, but from within. nearly 15 million of our fellow americans are unemployed, the night the dignity of a job. millions more are so dispirited they have given up even looking.

our national debt continues to streak to word unsustainable levels and is itself a national security issue. right here in new hampshire, the sheriff who has served for 30 years told me that for the first time ever his folks are handing out foreclosure notices to the middle class. all this after trillions of dollars in government spending and massive bailouts. our nation's core week. our people are hurting. and america cannot project power abroad when we are weak at home. it is increasingly evident that a we have lost leverage in the international community. in just the past few weeks, we saw the palestinians make an end run around the american-led peace process because they lost

confidence index, and in our ability to lead. the world as a better place when america leads. the world as a safer place when american leads. and our interests are best served when america leads. but to lead abroad, we must regain strength at home. returning people to work, reducing our debt, restoring confidence in our future. fixing of america first. that will be my most urgent priority. it will require more than half measures. will require serious, bold reforms to our tax and regulatory systems, reforms that i have offered as part of a plan that one economist calls the pro-proposal ever offered by a presidential candidate. i will drop that plan on the front steps of congress on a one

and will not stop fighting until we get the job done. number 2, we need a foreign policy of expansion, not containment. today we have a foreign policy based on expansion, the expansion of america's petted business and engagement in the world through partnerships and trade agreements. free trade supports nearly 18 million american jobs and establishing new lines of trade with international partners represents an enormous wealth of untapped economic and political good will. 95% of the world's customers live outside our borders, yet the united states is party to only 17 of the more than 300 trade agreements worldwide. we will particularly seek greater trade opportunities with nations that share our values

and believe in good government, open markets, and rule of law. as well as nations willing to engage in reform efforts toward those ends, it starts with passing the three pending trade deals with south korea, columbia, and panama, which president obama has resisted for three years, and which could boost american exports by more than $10 billion and create tens of thousands of american jobs. we should aggressively push for the conclusion of the trans- pacific partnership, which will open markets in australia, chile, malaysia, new zealand, peru, singapore, and the imam. we need to pursue free trade agreements as aggressively as china. that is in the game.

we are not. america must also support the doha development round, aimed at developing trade between nations. this is an opportunity for the unstoppable tide of economic advancement to lift all ships, and it falls to america to lead this effort. no one else can. energy independence is another critical piece of not only our foreign policy, but our economic policy. every year america sends more than 300. dollars overseas for imported oil, much of it to the middle east. those days should come to an end. i have offered a comprehensive plan to free ourselves from opec's grasp by relying more on domestic supplies of oil and gas, to the benefit our national and economic security.

number three, we must right-size our current foreign entanglements. we are risking american blood and treasure in parts of the world where our strategy needs to be rethought. afghanistan was once the center of the terrorist threat to america. that is no longer the case. the soviets were there for nine years before they left with over 14,000 dead. they tried to crush the afghans with your power. aerial bombing, strafing, helicopter gunships and tanks. we have been there can years and are taking a different approach. we are nation-building. our presence there should not focus on nation-building, however. but rather on counter-terrorism. we cannot social engineer other countries. we cannot even social engineer

our own inner cities. it is cultural arrogance to think we can make tribal leaders into democratic leaders. it is wishful thinking to believe that our troops by staying for a couple more years will prevent further instability. or even civil war. our men and women in uniform have done their al, given their all, in afghanistan and iraq. they have crippled al qaeda and other terrorist networks. they have taken the fight abroad so we do not have to face it here at home. our nation has done its duty. after 6000 lives lost and more than $1 trillion spent, it is more of credit is time to bring our brave troops home. as they return, we will take care of them and help our veterans transition from the battlefield to the home front.

and by doing so, or might every citizen in this country how much we've value those who are willing to put their lives between our freedom and the enemy. in afghanistan, we could go from 100,000 troops on the ground to a much smaller footprint in the year. while leaving behind adequate numbers counter terrorist and intelligence functions and a special forces presents, and i believe we should. as for the argument our exit will destabilize pakistan, the truth is only pakistan can save pakistan. only afghanistan can save it afghanistan. and right now we should focus on america saving america. our future is not in the hindu kush mountains of afghanistan.

it is in the schools and universities just like this one, which educate our leaders and our business leaders of tomorrow. it is in silicon valley. it is in the industrial corridors of the midwest. it is and our farms and factories and our ports that should our products to the rest of the world. let me be clear, pakistan, which possesses a demonstrated nuclear-weapons capability and a fractured military that sponsors terrorism, does the man u.s. attention. yet we must acknowledge certain reality is. this is not a relationship based on shared values. it is transactional at best. many americans are rightly suspicious of islamabad in the wake of the bin laden operation. likewise, despite billions of dollars in aid, the united states has held in very low

esteem throughout the country. we cannot dictate fundamental changes up on an age-old civilization from afar, but make no mistake -- as president, i will protect american security interests in pakistan without being naughty about islamabad's incentives. there is another advantage to a more judicious approach toward foreign entanglements. it helps prevent our military from being stretched too thin and unable to eat effectively respond to a direct security threat, either to america or to one of our allies. this includes standing shoulder to shoulder with israel as they manage a host of new challenges brought on by the arab spring, along with more familiar challenges such as a hostile iran, which will continue to be a transcendent challenge of the

next decade. i cannot live with a nuclear- arms to iran. if you want an example of what i would consider the use of american force, it would be that. a reexamination of america bought role in the world also requires a re-examination of our military and defense in for a charger. it may surprise some people to learn that we spend more on defense today than at the height of the cold war. indeed, we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. we still have remnants of a top- have the post-cold-war infrastructure. it needs to be transformed to reflect the 21st century world. and the growing a symmetric threats we face. for example, counter-terrorism needs to be a much larger part of our foreign policy. he must be prepared to respond

to threats from al qaeda at other terror cells, which emanate from a much more diverse jar for, including yemen, the horn of africa, and the asian-pacific region. we must adapt our defenses to devolving means of attack. this means a greater focus on intelligence gathering and a more agile special forces projection capability, which can respond swiftly and firmly to terrorist threats in any corner of the globe. the traditional roles and missions of our armed forces will remain relevant for the foreseeable future. but the rot of the importance of counter terrorist intelligence gathering and special forces operations will continue to grow going forward. we must also transform our

orientation. i have come to believe we are embarking on the asia-pacific century in which america must and will play a dominant role. by almost any objective measure, population, economic power, military might, energy used, the center of gravity, global human activity, is moving toward the pacific region. embracing this reality they bring a a dramatic change to the look of our military. the asia-pacific region is a maritime theater, whereas europe was mostly a land theater. for the united states, the asia- pacific features a collection of bilateral military alliances in contrast to the presence of nato in europe. it is full of disputed source claims when compared to the relative calm other regions.

we are a pacific nation, and our vital interests in that region cannot be compromised. number four, we must strengthen our relationships with the major powers of the world. our traditional alliance relationships with europe remain vital to american security, and we should also work closely with our friends in nato and european union to bring russia, a sometimes difficult actor, closer to the west. but i believe the remerchants across two should lance, china and india, will most influence how matt navigates the 21st century. first, china. there is no other place to ship that it mismanaged carries consequences.ve wise stewardship of the

relationship will make america and our allies safer and more prosperous. the stakes are enormous, as are the challenges and opportunities. naturally, we will disagree often, whether over taiwan's security needs, intellectual property rights, and while avoiding a trade war, we must press china to open its markets to our entrance and increased internal demand so china's gross is not at the expense of our workers. yet a fundamental question is, will we also find areas of cooperation? our relationship with china has been a transactional one for 40 years. we buy their products, and they buy our bonds, but for a truly healthy relationship, the need to infuse the u.s.-china

relationship with shared values. until that time, we should begin to build a broader and more cooperative agenda. the united states and china can and should today start collaborating on clean energy technologies, combating global index, and countering piracy on the high seas. we must also strengthen our relationship with india, a country that shares our values, religious tolerance, respect for human rights, and a commitment to democracy. we must begin with negotiations to reach an eventual trade agreement, creating hundreds of millions of additional consumers for american products. but our relationship with india needs to go beyond simply economics. the mark of countries that lie along the indian ocean border some of the most important energy and trading lanes in the entire world. those lanes are critical for the free flow of commerce and

remain vulnerable to threats large and small. to that end, i welcome the indian navy's record -- transformation to a bluewater navy. i will increase our military and the atlantic cooperation with india, with the expectation that they share responsibility in maintaining peace and security in this vital region. and recognizing india's and roll, i will also support our alies' bid to become permanent member of the u. n. security council, as befitting a country representing one sixth of humanity. fifth, finally, we must take care of our own neighborhood. for too long, the united states has neglected its commitment to the country's in our back yard,

the western hemisphere. the result is lost opportunities, strained relations, and escalating security challenges. latin america is not only a neighbor with whom we share a rich history, it is also a major source of untapped economic opportunity. the u.s. exports three times as much to latin america as we do to china, but many nations in our hemisphere are experiencing a terrifying surge in violence threatens to disrupt this gprogress. the wave of violence that is in mexico has left 35,000 dead, crating casualties within our borders. mexico stands ready to work with the united states in combating the drug war, and we should commit to continued cooperation, including enhanced military

engagement. in guatemala, escalating violence is resulting in an average of 55 murders per week, threatening an already overloaded justice system. these problems are not contained within guatemala's borders. the country has emerged as a funnel for regional non-criminal activity, threatening our neighbors and ourselves. as president, i will not accept the status quo. i will support our neighbors to quickly and sternly eliminate these terrorists. thea offer, initially under leadership of the president, pushed back and weakened the

drug cartels, while professionalizing its military and police forces. colombia now aspires to be a leader in latin america. there's tremendous potential within brazil, the world's fifth largest country. brazil is rich with opportunity in the energy and technology industries, which we should recognize with the initiation of bilateral trade negotiations. by forging partnerships and alliances, we can help develop political and economic stability throughout the region, creating an environment in which all peoples of latin america can rise. we must not forget that peace and prosperity throughout our neighborhood promotes peace and prosperity at home. i would like to close by sharing a thought from my time

in china. emotionally, one of the most powerful things i did as ambassador or could do was meet with dissidents. i would do this frequently, and sometimes i would go to them, sometimes that would come to the embassy. we did this quietly. it was a real peril for them at also closed some official doors to me. why was always clear to me was that those seeking reform and change crew strength -- drew strength from our nation possible values. the openness, the freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and press. dissidents around the world can see our nation's light. all the troops in the world cannot give you that light. you either have it or you did not.

that is america's now you in the world today. when we shined power light abroad, magnified by a strong core at home, which are invisible. ronald reagan said america was an empire of ideals. ladies and gentlemen, if we ofntain our anempire ideals, not only will we further the cause of liberty, human rights, and free enterprise abroad, we will strengthen its right here at home. and that is a cause around which all of our citizens can and must unite. thank you for inviting me and for providing such warm hospitality. it is an honor to be with you all. [applause] hsu oc>> greater than we have tr

a few questions. >> thank you much for your thoughtful remarks. one of the things you criticize it, administration for was their failure resulting in the palestinians going to the u.n. for a bid for statehood. knowing that israeli settlement activity is the major bar in negotiations between negotiations between the parties, what would you have done or what will you do to make negotiations have been directly between the israelis and palestinians? >> get back to the madrid understanding, get back to the progress that was made during the camp david accord. look at what has worked in the past. we must recognize that in a

region of change, now might not be the time for negotiations. we have to listen very carefully to what leadership in israel has to say about the timing issue. if now is not the time, i do not think we can force the process, but what we can do during this time of uncertainty is to stand shoulder to shoulder with israel and remind the world what it means to be a friend and ally of the united states. this we have not gone in a very long time, and so long there is no blue sky between united states and israel, it does not matter what place out in the region. so long we are focused on israel, security and our strong alliance, it does not matter if there is a period of uncertainty that we have seen in generations past. that is what the day i think is the most important, is that public articulation to the world about what it means to be a friend and ally of the united states, and now that is a statement that needs to be made

with respect to israel. thank you. [applause] >> with your experience in china and their unwillingness to change the dollar value, would you put a tax on the products that come into the united states? >> china is moving its currency, although the progress has been painfully slow. when you look at the progress over the last year and year-and- a-half, it is maybe 5% or 8%. when you factor in inflation, which is running at 5% or more in china, they have to be looked at together to get movement on the issue. they are moving not because the united states is telling them to move, not because europe is telling them to men, because they are making a historic

transition to a consumption- based model. to allow their middle class to move up the economic ladder, they have to have a currency that is more tied to market value than where it is today, being up to 20% discount. they are moving based upon their own domestic interests. i would like to see the united states, based on pressure we put on them, are causing that movement. i think that is part of it. in large part the chinese are moving because they see it is being in their interest to move. what i would like to see a president do is to take the message coming out of capitol hill, which is we're going to move forward with legislation, it is come out of the senate and house, ultimately that the practice would be bad, because it would result in a trade war, and the last thing you need between the two top economies in the world is a trade war, particularly during a recession. it would impact all the people

who can little afford a trade war, small businesses, exporters who are just trying to get back on their feet. i would think that built the congress and sit down with the leadership with china in the great hall of the people and say here's what my congress is coming from. which should be moving that currency forward faster and more aggressively. you need leverage get what is meeting to be done with the chinese. part of my speech in getting back to strengthening our core because i realize an international negotiation with the chinese, we need leverage, a traditionally our leverage has been a strong economy. what -- when our economy is weak, we have little leverage. does the will of congress and what they're talking about provide us leverage, absolutely, it does. let's recognize the longer term

of the u.s.-china relationship. we will have ups and downs. we started in 1972. we are 40 years into it. it is soon to be the largest nshiop theelations o world has ever known. china reforming and opening markets and in more to protect property rights will allow more of our exports into their markets as their base strengthen over time. that is a job creator in the united states. that is probably up to 12,000 jobs yet created here at home. that is a good thing. i would like to see our ability to find more in the way of areas of collaboration with china. we all know where we disagree. the disagreements will be tough, profound, and broadcast in

headlines to the rest of the war. the balance the most important bishop as far as the eye can see an attorney for some tree, we must do some work in terms of finding areas that are considered common ground, areas of commonality. whether that is regional security, economic balancing, and new energy technologies, finding breakthroughs in human disease. there are things we should be working on where we could bring that which we both have in strength and trying to improve human kind. take attacking pandemic in sub- saharan africa. we should be doing that. in the 21st century, it will be the century in which the united states and cry not try to forge -- the united states and china try to forge a relationship that is sustainable. we have a lot of work to do, and it will require each of that understands in detail how the

chinese system operates, knows their players, knows their history. i bring this to the table, i'm like anybody else in the race. [unintelligible] [applause] thank you. right down here. >> i like what you said about india. it makes a lot of sense, and moving them higher up in the u.n., but given the strained relationship between our country and pakistan, does that not also provoke pakistan? >> of course. we have seen what they have done. they make certain diplomatic gestures to china to counteract what we do.

in the name of security in south asia, a strong u.s.-indian relationship will be critical longer term. it serves our economic interests. it serves our security and military interest in providing greater stability in what traditionally has been a troubled part of the world. i like the idea of making a bilateral relationship with india that allows more of us the ability to see, understand, and interpret what is happening in the heart of south asia. we need more intelligence. we need to know where the bad actors are, what kind of treatment they are getting. we need to understand the way that young people are being educated in south asia. its circulation with india will allow us to gain that understanding which longer-term service not only our interests, but the security interests of the region and abroad. >> time for one more question.

>> yes, sir. good to see. >> speech he did not mention the united nations at all. the you seek the united nations as declining in influence in the world? suddenly, do you see the united nations potentially threatening the sovereignty of the united states? >> i see the united nations as playing a key role in peace working separate what i did not like is the inherent anti- americanism that i find exists within the united nations, and at times an anti-israel by esprit that concerns me. as we are able to get on our feet economically by rebuilding our economic core, that allows us to do more with other

countries. the u.n. does not lead the world. the united states leads the world. we're in a better position to do that by having a stronger economic relationship. thank you also very much for having me. thank you. thank you. [applause] >> thank you to governor huntsman for being with us and for being here today. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[unintelligible]

[unintelligible]

>> if we are smart about it attacks policy right and a bar on energy independence, there will be political questions in terms of overall stability. we should position our economy as being the premier market for manufactured. >> we can deregulate ourselves and not? >> we can. if it brings us jobs and expansion the mob that pays for schools and teachers, allows the our nation to fund those things, that is what i did as governor. our economy was ok, and we

created a flat tax in our state. the business that came in and the activity that followed on to that was such that we were able to triple the rate-day fund. >> what are you going to do about the financial committee -- community and how they are taxed? >> you have to find that balance. >> thank you, i appreciate that. >> this world is a changing

place. >> thank you, very, very much. >> thank you. >> waterboard video of the candidates. see what political reporters are saying and track the latest campaign contributions received an's web site for campaign 2012. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape was twitter feet and facebook updates, candidate bios, and the latest polling data. all leat c- span.org/campaign2012. >> army secretary john mchugh's

comments are next. then we will hear from it james risen. his 2006 book about a cia operation in iran. >> every good story has a good beginning, a solid middle, and a strong ending. >> what they think we should do for this year's competition? >> you don't need the best video equipment to have a winning project. toyou don't have access better video equipment, don't let that stop you. if the need a little more help, go to studentcam.org.

>> i find it useful to read the rules very carefully and then make a checklist of what you need to do. the process becomes clear once you get started. >> you can work alone on the project or you can work on the team. if you are a good writer but not very heady with the camera, then get a friend to help out. not only with you both learn something, you will increase your chances of winning. >> you can use your parents, other students, teachers, and c- span as resources for you along the way. this process is both fun and extremely rewarding. with a little bit of effort, anyone can do this.

>> the pentagon will implement $350 billion in budget cuts over the next 10 years under compromise reached in august by congress to raise the debt ceiling. we will hear army secretary john mchugh talk about those budget reductions, next. he spoke at the association of the u.s. army conference for about 30 minutes. >> lester, you may recall and said this was really the first opportunity i had to speak with you as the army secretary, because my first appearance in 2009, i had only been on the job of few weeks, so i was still trying to find my way around. now this is my third meeting and i have gone from being the newby to the old timer, at least on the army section of it. since i first spoke to you in 2009, actually since just last

year, i have now worked with three different chiefs of staff, two secretaries of defense, two deputy secretaries of defense, two chairman, and two chairman -- vice chairman of the joint chiefs. have to tell you with all those changes, i would have thought would have a better parking space by now, but i understand my place. but i do think i need to caution the new chief, because as i do the calculations, at this rate i am going through a chief of staff per speech, so you might want to watch your back. [laughter] it is a great honor to be here. i cannot think of any place i would rather be. but i am a little confused as to why we are kicking this great army celebration of on columbus day. frankly, i always thought columbus day was more of a navy holiday. i don't mean it because of that

1492 ocean blue stuff, but in my mind, christopher columbus was the quintessential army man. after all, when he left, he did not know where he was going. when he got there, he didn't know where he was. when he came back, he really didn't know where he had been. but before he left, he had to have three new ships. [laughter] the secretary is a good friend. we have had a good-natured service rivalry, and we can do that, because we both recognize the partnership are services have enjoyed on so many levels, and more importantly, how important those partnerships are to the strength of our nation

and our nation's defense. that having been said, go army, the navy. -- beat navy. [applause] in all seriousness, all of the services, the army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard, the department of defense writ large, are facing a critically important year, one that i think will shape the face of our national defense for many years to come. we have often talked, as we should, about the great stress and strain that a decade of war has placed upon our soldiers, their families, and that is still true. we are still at war. and we work diligently every day to try to make certain they get what they need, to get it when they needed, that we give them all the support they require to

build resilience and all the care that is necessary when they come home. but there is one stress and strain that others have felt that in recent years we have not so much. we have not had to give it a whole lot of thought. that is the stress and strain that a decade of war has had on our federal budget and the american taxpayer. for some time now, it seemed as though the department of defense and the united states army has had near limitless resources for what ever we needed. but after 10 years of war at a shaky global economy, that is changing. in fact, your army, the department of defense is under a -- under understandable and significant pressure to do better. all you have to do is go on tv, go on line, turn on the radio, read a newspaper, and you know

that each day, the president, our congressional leaders, are struggling with ways to try to deal with this budget crisis, trying to stimulate the economy, agree upon a path by which they can reduce the deficit. some of that effort will inevitably fall on our doorstep. in fact, it already has. as secretary gates warned just before he left, "the gusher has been turned off and will stay off for a good. time." this by divine -- declining defense budgets, we still have an obligation to preserve strategic options provided to the president of the united states by maintaining sufficiently modernize bourses, capable of rapidly deploying decisive combat power. no major conflict has ever been won without boots on the ground. accordingly, our national interests demand that while we

set about the task of reshaping his army for the years ahead, we remain steadfast and continue to support this, the greatest land force the world has ever known. [applause] as secretary panetta observed when he was sworn in, "we don't have to make a choice between fiscal discipline in national security." decisions on defense spending must be made carefully, thoughtfully, and strategically. the decisions that we make must preserve our ability to protect our core national interests, and most importantly, not break faith with the men and women who are fighting for us, because we asked them to. to meet current and future threats, our military must remain the finest in the world.

must be an agile and deployable, full spectrum force that can deter conflict, project power, and win wars. that is a great challenge, and that challenge will bring about difficult times and difficult decisions, but i would tell you as well, it is also an opportunity to shape, to change, to transform the army, not just to come to terms with the fiscal constraints of today, but to better meet the challenges that we know somewhere, sometime we will face tomorrow. it is reality that every time we have endeavored to protect the nature of future conflicts, we often miss the target. in a speech at west point, then secretary bob gates said when it comes to predicting the future, we are perfect. we have always gotten it wrong. post korea, the end of world war

roman one, world war ii and beyond, budget and force structure decisions were made in a fashion that over time depleted our forces and strained the quality of life for our soldiers and their families. unlike in the past, this time we have seen this downturn coming for some time. under the leadership of first secretary gates and now secretary panetta, we have been analyzing the best way in which to meet these challenges and as such, i can tell you we are better positioned than any time in our nation's history to deal with the fiscal realities and do it in a way that true makes sense. all of us have to understand the armies in the strength is going to look different in the near future than it does today. as we draw down into theaters of war, we think we can handle that challenge, but what is

critically important is that no matter what the force altman looks like on we have sufficient time to ramp down, to ensure that we do it in a balanced way, that we have what is necessary for training, equipment, and most importantly, as i said, we continue to stand by those troops who even in the darkest hours of 2006 and 2007 stood by us, never wavering, never abandoning the battlefield. we have been famously instructed that if you don't learn from history, you repeat it. let's hope all of us have learned from history as we debate and decide the future of land power and the future of our army. there is no question that this past decade has placed great strains on all of the service branches. there is no question still that each of us has unique needs to

rebuild from this decade of conflict and to prepare for the wars ahead. but what truly concerns mean as i listen to and read some of the columnists, the analyst, the part-time experts, the talking heads, is the suggestion that somehow, some of the services recover at the sacrifice of others, that the united states probably does not need a strong and decisive standing army and the future to them looks more like transformers than saving private ryan. history looms before us once again. great leaders like douglas macarthur and george marshall warned about cutting too much, too far, too fast. at about the importance of having an army in place that is ready to answer americas call anytime, anywhere.

even some not so great leaders like a little known upstate new york congressman who saw and warned of the dangers of cutting too far, of hollowing out our forces and putting our nation at strategic risk. just weeks before the attacks of september 11, 82 of my colleagues on the house armed services committee and i wrote to secretary rumsfeld, warning about using cuts in the army as a bill payer for the programs. "said while we support the secretary's efforts to ensure our military is prepared for future conflicts, reduction in the armies forced structural would clearly undermine that goal." one of my own new york state newspapers was critical of that effort, accusing us of clinging to "relics of the old 20 a century force."

they wrote for the that with high-tech air power and precision munitions increasingly dominating the modern battlefield, it makes sense to consider reducing the nation's conventional forces. then came september 11, and an enemy did not quite sure that newspaper's editorial views. nevertheless, i can see their point. there is no question our needs for supremacy in all forms has to be achieved and maintained. we must develop and utilize all the available technology to establish every means of tactical superiority that is available to us. but i would argue, one need not happen at the expense of the other. we must ensure we have a balanced approach to meet our nation's future defense needs. in his work, this kind of war,

there is a passage that is probably familiar to many, if not most of you. he said it may fly over land forever. you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it, and wipe it clean of life, but if you desire to fend it, protected, and kick of for civilization, you must do this on the ground. the way the roman legions did, by putting your young men into the mud. his observations are as relevant today as they ever were, because while we shot, while we -- at the end of the day we did the most important thing to gain and ensure victory, we marched. there is no getting around the fact it is the army that has been saddled with much of the burden of these past years, providing between 50% and 70% of

our deployed forces. i think it is important to remind people that while the united states army represents half of our nation's entire force, we consume only about a quarter to 30% of the entire defense budget. the army, a decisive army remains vital to our national security, both today and into the future. it is something i believe from both sides of the potomac, versus a con -- first as a congressman and now as a secretary. but if we are going to do the right thing by this army, if we are going to maintain a proper set of structure and balance in an era of declining budgets, something has to give. i think we all know that. we have been working hard to try to figure out ways to reduce costs, to create greater efficiencies and to change the way that we in the army do

business. last year i told you that i had found a project, and that project has since given me hope that there are things the army can do and must do to meet the challenges that are currently before us. over the course of nearly 10 years, the operational army, the fighters have changed every day as they confront a very dynamic, a very decentralized, adaptive, and deadly enemy. often hour by hour those war fighters have morphed as new threats arose to them and to our national security interest. but our institutions and processes from personnel to training and development to personal systems must be able to adapt just as quickly and efficiently. but it is structured today much as it has been for the past decade, and we have set out to

change that. as you may already know, i have issued a number of directives to begin transforming that institutional army, not even primarily to cut costs, but to fundamentally change and reshape the way we do business. among those efforts are rooting out overlap and redundancies in research and development and reviewing so-called temporary organizations and task force to see if they are still needed or even relevant to the challenges we face today. have directed efforts to consolidate and streamline the requirements process, reforms installation management, and optimize army service acquisitions. we are working on sweeping changes in human capital management. a survey we conducted earlier this year and that 65% of active duty general officers raided personnel management as one of the worst performing functions in the army. as one general noted, human

capital management is the most important, yet the least agile system. i said before, you cannot have an air force without airplanes. it cannot have a navy without ships, and you sure can i have an army without people. people is what we are about. to hear someone tell us we are not developing or managing that area is pretty tough to take. i am not just talking about attracting and retaining and selecting the best available people to be army professionals, as important as that is. it is how we further develop them once they come in, how we manage human capital, how we continue to build on the investment we have made in our civilians as well as our soldiers, how we ensure that the opportunities for creativity, leadership, an advance that that are present on the battlefield today are still present when we bring those great warriors home, is the path to guaranteeing we

are ready for the future. if we don't do these kinds of things, others will do them for us. others will do them to us. we will risk being salami slice, hollowed out. this is our chance, or moment to lead and innovate, to restructure and transform. let me just give you one other example of what we can do, what we have done to restructure. the most recent directives i signed restructured the army service acquisition program based on findings from a task force that i created a number of months ago. of the $243 billion the army had to spend in total in 2010, $140 billion of that was spent on contracts. of that $140 billion, more than half was spent on services. that translated into about

260,000 actions awarded by 225 different offices, carried out by thousands and thousands of different people. i thought there might be a better way to do that kind of thing, and i think we have found it. last week, i directed a new government structure that will immediately consolidate about 45% of all service obligations into just six portfolio management centers. those six are facilities support services, medical services, transportation services, electronics and communication, equipment related services, and knowledge based services. this will, i believe, firmly improved oversight effectiveness by helping us taylor and apply and monitor the results of better buying practices for improved acquisition as well as leveraging portfolio demand for better pricing. this kind of actions identified

by us, structured by us, implemented by us, will help us work in positive ways to deal with the budgets that will be formulated for us by others. we can, we must, and i promise you, we will do better. as the army's top civilian, i have one of the greatest honors here this week in its exposition. i get to help kick off this week with what amounts to a prime- time address. that is the honor. but there is a challenge as well. the challenge is to try to make all this bureaucracy sound remotely interesting, when i know what you really want is some hoo-ah. i have been blessed with my share of hoo-ah moments this

past year. we marked the anniversary of september 11 with somber remarks, and for the first time we reflected and remember those losses without the world's most notorious terrorist still at large. we ended a policy that forced young men women to live a life of anathema to the they are. we know who they are. they are american soldiers. remarked great courage and sacrifice. president obama awarded the medal of honor to staff sergeant -- and staff sgt for his actions at during a firefight in afghanistan. he became the first living recipient of the medal of honor since vietnam. few months later, sergeant first

class leroy petrie became the second living honoree of these conflicts, recognized for saving the lives of at least two met fellow rangers, throwing away a live grenade that had been hurled at his comrades, costing his right hand in the process. asked at a later time what might have done in differently if he had the chance, without a hard be lost, he said "i would have thrown it with my left hand." that is that americans older. we inducted both of these great heroes into our hall of heroes -- that is the american soldier. it was a great privilege for all fors to honor these two maen their courage and valor. over the course of this past year, i have seen this next

greatest generation at work in service to america, deployed to two very difficult the uterus of war, but also across 80 countries banning the globe, whether fighting terror in the philippines are keeping peace in the sinai, challenging nature on the banks of the mississippi river or scouring the terrain of long ago battlefields to bring home a fallen but not forgotten comrade. their missions are complex, their service remarkable, and i am humbled to be even remotely in their company. i recognize the great challenge, the great responsibility we in the army leadership have to these men and women who wear the uniform of that american soldier to their families, to their civilian work force. during a recent trip to afghanistan, i had the chance to spend some time with the young captain and a first lieutenant just a little more than a year

out of the military academy. they were in charge of operations in part of the valley. they had led the combat missions that had cleared their part of the valley. thereafter, they engaged with the village elders throughout the region. they tended meetings negotiating with them, assuring them of the best interest we had in coming to their part of the world. they worked to equip and train the afghans forming of the local afghan police. they are the very essence of full spectrum operations. the level of responsibility, adaptability, an authority we have given these incredible go leaders is unprecedented. they are doing jobs today that in the not so distant past, ranks of 2005, 2006, and yet we count on them every single day and they have performed remarkably.

[applause] how we ensure that the opportunities for creativity, leadership, and advancement that have been present on the battlefields of today exists throughout the army tomorrow, no matter what deployments look like, that will be the critical challenge for us to ensure that we are ready for tomorrow, and it will make certain that the army as a whole is prepared and postured for conflicts and unpredictable missions of the future. equally important as we continue wrestling with budget realities, the army and our nation must heed the lessons of history in deciding our future strength and our future structure. it is the same lesson george marshall warned about repeatedly, perhaps never so strongly as in a widely publicized address in new york

shortly after the allied victory. respect, he said, is an intangible, but consider what it would have meant to us in tangibles had we commanded military specter of germany, italy, and japan in 1939. not only our willingness but our capability to organize, to fight, and to win. he pondered that had anticipated american willingness and american resolve, perhaps the world might never have known world war ii, but respect, he said, is fleeting, unless we've been our efforts to preserve it. this must be our solemn obligation, to ensure this nation's continued respect, built on the ballot and sacrifice and bloodshed of this magnificent volunteer force,

the young men and women of the united states army who committed an recommitted themselves to defending this great nation after the attacks on our shores. we owe it to them to ensure that our nation's strength, our nation's resolve, is never again so challenged. so they'd you for your partnership in the path ahead -- thank you for your partnership in the path ahead, thank you for all you have done in supporting these amazing men and women in uniform and their families. god bless america, and god bless this incredible army that keeps it safe. >> on tomorrow's "washington journal," we are joined by nancy cook of the national journal about a recent article on the new working class and the changing economic demographics in the united states. then economist bill hample on how credit unions differ from commercial banks. after that, we will talk with kevin concannon about the

national school lunch program. washington journal" each morning at 7 eastern here on c-span. later in the day, remarks from defense secretary leon panetta on the pentagon's budget priorities. secretary panetta took over as defense secretary this summer after stepping down as cia director. live coverage from the wilson center at 1:00 p.m. eastern. >> c-span radio is another way to keep up with politics and public affairs, offering a mix of the most relevant events from the three c-span television networks, and some exclusives, like the real air of the sunday news programs from the major networks. if your in washington d.c., listen to us at 90.1 fm and on our iphone and blackberry apps.

c-span radio, another public service, created by the nation's public television industry, and now in our 15th year. >> new york times correspondent james risen face is going to jail later this month for refusing to reveal his sources for a 2006 book about a cia operation in iran. last week he spoke about the case at the graduate school of journalism. he is joined by former new york times reporter who teaches journalism at berkeley. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> i am logan professor of investigative reporting here at the graduate school of journalism at the university of california berkeley. we are honored today to have jim arisen with us -- jim risen. it covers national security if

he covers the national security beat at "the new york times." jim and i crossed paths for the first time back in 1998 when he joined "the new york times," which was my first official relationship with the newspaper. before that you were at the "los angeles times" for many years and were well known to all of us as someone to respect and to worry about on a story. what we are going to talk about tonight is a kind of reporting that is unique to the united states. there are very, very few countries in the world where you are allowed to report on the national security of the country and its national

security organizations and 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. that includes the united kingdom, canada, and almost any other country you can think up. 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 a sort of informal way, mostly done by freelancers, and then the names you know that today -- names a you know today became part of the establishment press, particularly around the pentagon papers.

there was going to be a report in "the new york times" and the president said you cannot publish that story. they did not, and six months later, john f. kennedy called the editor of "the new york times" and said it is to bet we did not let you publish that story. 10 years later, it was the pentagon papers, and from that a series of other records in the u.s. media that led to a tradition backed up by congressional hearings that changed 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 sitting right here, mr. jim

risen. today he told me he had gotten some calls from his lawyers in washington, and the case that currently threatens him with possible contempt of court and consequences will be going to trial on october 17. i think that is one of the reasons why this is being videotaped, because the beer is he will not be around to talk -- the fare is he will not be around to talk. could happen. i have to recommend to you the case that jim is going to talk about tonight, although he is restricted bge did explain 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. so if he says i am sorry i cannot comment on that, that is

why, not because he doesn't want to. i recommend you the indictment of the united states of america versus jeffrey alexander stirling, who is a former cia official who allegedly was a source of jim's, who is facing criminal trial starting october 17. mr. sterling is alleged to have told jim about a case involving a cia operation in iran. i think he can talk a little bit about it. can you talk about that here tonight? >> yes. >> it details in his book, " state of war," chapter 9 of the book. part of what is in this book is a story that many of you have heard about, which is the fact that the national security id ministration, on orders from the president of the united

states, began to intercept phone calls, e-mails, 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 and orders of the president of the united states and done secretly, and that jim and eric lichtblau got the pulitzer prize for revealing this in the pages "of the new york times." this was a year after that actually learned this information. those of you who have attended the symposium that we do annually, the logan symposium, know that we questioned bill keller, a the executive editor about this, and he said the

reason we held it for a year was that it was not fully reported. we do know that jim had actually put that information in this book, which was scheduled to be published two or three months after the story appeared. >> two weeks after. >> in the filings -- jim has already been through struggle with the bush administration about subpoenas related to that revelation and who was his source. the bush administration dropped that case. the obama administration came and. the expectation was that the obama administration would not continue this process. they changed their tactical approach.

instead of dropping the process, they decided not to convene a grand jury to find out who jim's sources were related to the nsa eavesdropping story, but instead, chapter 9 of this book, which is about a clandestine operation that failed, that some would say was a debacle, in iran. therefore, "the new york times" was not involved in the legal proceedings ones that happenj. im then faced another -- jim then face another subpoena on that issue. one of the more startling things about what is going on is that the obama administration currently has five federal grand juries investigating leaks to the media in the national security area, including this one. more grand juries and more

investigations that all the president's of the united states since the passage of the espionage act in 1917 and it's the men and in 1950. -- its amendment in 1950. it is a phenomenon that most people are not aware of. as of today, the consequences of that are something that jim has to live with. jim risen. [applause] >> i think lowell just gave my lecture. that was very good. >> thank you. i actually stayed up last night and read the whole thing. >> what gold said was all true. -- what will set was all true. what i would like to talk about is why i think this is important today, and what i think are the

ramifications for our society. what happened with this case, i was subpoenaed on this chapter 9 as it relates to an operation by the cia in the year 2000, in which the cia asked a russian scientists who had defected to the united states to hand over some blueprints of a nuclear weapon to the iranians. they thought that was a good idea to give the iranians nuclear blueprints, and they claimed that it was a great idea because blueprints were flawed, and this would throw the iranians of track. what i was told was that the operation was screwed up from the start, was mismanaged, and

was reckless, and that it almost certainly aided the iranian nuclear weapons program, which is why i wrote about it in my book. that is part of a larger chapter in the book about the degree to which iranian operations by the cia had been mismanaged and dysfunctional, and that as a result, the u.s. intelligence was virtually just as blind dealing with the iranian weapons of mass destruction issue as they had been on the iraqi weapons of mass destruction issue. i was first subpoenaed -- a federal grand jury was empaneled almost immediately after the book came out. the fbi began an investigation and started talking to people all over washington to try to find out where my information came from.

i now know, based on documents that have been filed by the government in the case, that they began to effectively spy on me, too. they kept my phone records, bank records, credit card results, travel records, airline records, e-mails, and that whether or not they were actually wiretapping my phone in real time, i am not sure. i think what shocked the government after they subpoenaed me was that they got a federal judge who disagreed with their decision to come after a reporter. i think they expected that every judge in the country would go along with their assaults on the press. instead, they got a judge to actually, in my opinion, bullies

in the first amendment and who eventually bge believes in the first amendment, and eventually quashed the subpoena from the grand jury. that actually quashed two subpoenas from the grand jury, and then suppressed a third subpoena for the trial after that actually indicted someone in this case. so currently, the last subpoena against me to testify was suppressed by the judge, and now the government is currently trying bge has filed a series of motions to try to get the judge to change her opinion. so we are kind of waiting for 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, the first time that a subpoena to a reporter in a federal criminal

case has been quashed. i think that is a very significant -- i think it could of hold a really 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 subpoenas against reporters and to a lengthy battle that led judy miller of "the new york times" to go to jail. patrick miller, who was the special prosecutor in the plame case was given independent powers by the attorney general at the time. he essentially decided it was not going to recognize a reporter's privilege and began to subpoena reporters all over washington. this was something new that had brought down kind of an unspoken

agreement between the press and the government that had lasted about 30 years since the late 1970's. there had been as i set an unspoken agreement between the government and people who covered national security, from about the post watergate era on, where they would conduct leak investigations of stories, but they would never really do anything about its. it was kind of like that scene in "casablanca" where they said there is gambling going on, and they said round up the usual suspects. nobody thought it was really important to go to the mat on this. we all kind of understood, as long as you let the government know what you are working on and give them a chance to at least talk to you, that they would

accept more or less what you were doing. that all changed with the plame case, and it was the great unintended consequence of the libby criminal case. a lot of liberals and progressives don't like to think about the fact that the pressure put on the government's to go after judy miller and send her to jail had an enormous cost to the american press corps, especially the washington press corps. lead to a breakdown of the entire system, this ambiguity that had been built into the system for 30 years disappeared almost are it is almost overnight. -- almost overnight. they no longer feel any compunction about subpoenaing

reporters and sending people to jail for talking to reporters. i think what we are now seeing with the obama administration is that this really does cross party lines. at first, people thought it was just george bush, but in fact, i think what it shows is that anyone in power wants to try to cut down -- wants to control the power of information. they like to link themselves. the white house leaks more than any other institution in washington. they leak to people who will write what they want to write. what they don't like is when someone else leaked embarrassing information or politically damaging information to reporters who write those stories. they are trying to essentially closed down the avenues of embarrassing, politically

inconvenient stories and to limit the areas of national security reporting into a kind of accepted box, where they make sure their reporters no you can only go within these limits, otherwise there will be penalties and consequences. essentially, that is an effort to create in a de facto sense, without having to get congress to approve it, a form of an official secrets act, which is the british law that outlaws reporting in certain areas of government secrecy. i think that it is kind of action by the government is allowed to continue, that is what they will be doing, going after more and more reporters who write about things that are considered inconvenient. what they have not been able to

do, as far as i can tell, is to ever prove that any story in a newspaper or on television ever truly damaged national security. the fact that the american press has never, in my opinion, never harmed american national security, even the case you pointed out earlier in world war or the chicago tribune -- the shikoku tribune wrote a story saying that the united states had broken japanese codes, and franklin roosevelt got furious about this case and ordered to prosecute the chicago tribune for espionage. but they did not do it, and it was probably the right thing to do, because by ignoring it, the

japanese never read the chicago tribune. it did not make any difference in the war. that was probably the closest case you can never come to actually potential damage to american national security, and it had no effect whatsoever. the 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 have filed in my case, they explained in great detail that they think i went too far. i went across 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 should be a very critical time to determine which way this case goes. with that, i would be happy to open it to questions. maybe if we just ask questions, we can keep going in whatever direction you want. >> let me explain that since i stayed up last night and read these two documents which are on line, and if you want to come up later, we will give you the link and you can download them.

when you say outside the bounds of acceptable practice, the government says and the judge decides in the opinion, which first quashed the subpoena, the garment rivers is that on the iran story, which also happened with the nsa eavesdropping story, you and your editors went to the white house. you seem to be on a show "road to the white house -- on a shuttle to the white house. should we publish this? will it damage national security? the group in this case on the iran story come on chapter nine, included now professor at stanford condoleezza rice, who i

understand may be a witness in the trial. at these meetings, it was made clear to you and your washington bureau chief, who is now the executive editor at "the new york times" that you publish this is going to damage national security and possibly endanger lives? "so the new york times" then agreed not to publish it. so that story -- it still has not been published in the pages of "the new york times." it is only available in the pages of this book. they are making the argument that because the new york times did not publish the story, therefore he stepped outside the bounds of acceptable journalism. >> that is what i was referring to.

>> the only reason i hesitate about getting into the details of that is because that is an issue under current litigation. >> do we have any questions? >> [unintelligible] if "the new york times" knew about it before, but did they know about it before the election? " with the results be that they had leaked it before the election? -- what would the results be if they had leaked it before the election? >> the question was that "the new york times" publicist dory in late 2005 after the election,

but had the story for a year. had it been published before the 2004 election, would that have made any difference? >> i think everybody involved has thought about that. i think it could go either way. it is hard to tell how a story would affect an election. might not have had any effect at all. i try not to think about the political impact of the story when you are writing it, because that can drive you crazy. i think you just try to write the story as soon as you can get it in a paper prepared but the question here is that it drive you crazy that it did not 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 that 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 is that i don't know about. i know that they have thought about conducting -- i know that they did conduct leak investigations of other chapters of the book, too, that never went to the prosecution. i don't know whether they are still doing any surveillance now, but i do know that they did.

>> he calls me up one day and says "you are in my file." >> it was funny because my lawyers it did when i was first subpoenaed in 2008, -- >> and freedom of information act request. >> the perce response cannot tet ongoing investigations, but we will get back to you on closed investigations, and about to year or two later, i got a huge envelope from the fbi or the justice department, and it was about all these old investigations they have done, and it was hilarious to go through them, because they were taking it so seriously.

some of them were stories i cannot imagine. we did are really good story about the russians by robert hansen. >> the fbi agent who was a russian spy. good >> he gave up the fact that the u.s. had dug a tunnel under the russian embassy in russia. that.ld the russians about fa when was that -- 2001? >> before that. >> are found page after page of investigation. >> he did say something earlier, which i experienced

personally, and that is that i fbie sat at the desk of f agent who was in as the nod, and they are complaining to me, do not worry about leak investigations, because every time we have to talk to a journalist, the attorney general always says no, we cannot subpoena journalists, and in fact, in the middle of this conversation, a gentleman walked in his office, who has been of one of our symposiums, and he lifted the call directory off his boss's boss to desk and said, it is a leak investigation. i have to see if you have been talking. and i am sitting there. [laughter]

the change is a very dramatic change. the bargain has broken down. >> it was all on spoken, and it was creative ambiguity built into the system. nobody wanted to admit for 30 years we have as bargain with the government where they would go through investigations but never do anything about it, and that all changed virtually overnight, and if open the floodgates to prosecutions and investigations and much greater pressure on news organizations from the government, and that has had a chilling affect on people who might consider being zero whistle-blower, and it has also had an effect on

reporters, who left to keep in mind what is going to happen if you write about certain things. >> remember that the beginnings of reporting we talked about andn in the early 1960's, they really hated the kennedy administration, the obama administration, and now the obama administration has made it into an effective method. there are five cases. >> the government is not a computer. a bunch of guys with

computers. what is the highest ranking official whose name appears in the action against you, and how much higher does it have to go then knew? >> it has to be approved by the eternal -- the attorney general in person, and i think gonzales did not last long enough, so it has to go to the attorney general. the attorney general who would not do this without the approval of the white house. i think it goes to the white house counsel, and i am sure it goes to the president to subpoena a reporter with the potential of putting them in

jail, so on paper i think it goes to the attorney general. i think it goes beyond that, to secure a good and -- and beyond that, too. >> about the need to protect weeks, is that a leading cause of the failure to pass a federal shield law? >> there has been legislation to give reporters a form that would protect them from these kinds of subpoenas. i see a house in the house a couple years ago.

in order to get approval from the white house, they had to agree to a larger and loophole for national security reporting, so 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 at the federal level are doing national security reporting, so it basically gutted the shield law, and they let it die in the senate. it is too bad, and i think part of it is the atmosphere in washington since 9-11 has been a traditional values but has gone

all the way to security on virtually every issue. nobody really cares about reporters or what happens to them. >> how are your legal expenses handled? >> my book publisher has handled them for the most part. recently, it has been going on for so long our lawyers agreed to do it pro bono. they have been very supportive

you're a good -- very supportive. my lawyers are great and lawyers. >> nothing like freeloaders. >> -- free lawyers. >> is there any work to try to put pressure on or change that atmosphere? >> they have been pushing the shield law. has been stopped. i do not go it -- i do not know if it got a lot of the judiciary committee, but it died about a year or two ago.

it has been in limbo. >> where is the line of 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 this is too dangerous and too much of a threat to our own national security? >> there is always a balancing act, and they are difficult decisions. i have had a lot of experience, because i have covered this of

starting in 1995, and i have heard all of the explanations about many stories were they would say, do not write that superior do not write this. one of my favorite stories could really change my mind about how to accept their version of stories -- in 2000 or early 2001, i found out the cia had a team of officers in afghanistan trying to work with the northern alliance to kill bin laden, and once i found out about it, i called the cia for comment. the cia director called me

personally, and he said, do not write that story. you will get my guys killed, so i did not write the story, and then 9-11 happens, and i finally wrote the story after 9-11, but over the next couple years, one of the big debates in washington, once they created the 9-11 commission, was why didn't the cia do more prior to 9-11 to get bin laden, and after going through all the documents and all the history on that, i later wonders, was that operations the cia was doing just a token operation to avoid, to say we are doing something when they were not doing something, if i have written

that at a time, would that have caused a debate about should we get more aggressive about bin laden or not? bin laden knew all about those guys. he killed masud to get him out goes away. that made me think about how much should you listen to them versus how much independent thought the you have to bring to those issues and not just signed with the government -- not just accept what the government was saying, and that played a big role in how i dealt with a lot of issues. >> i am not a journalist. maybe this is common knowledge, but in the last 50 years, the last 100 years, what stories can

the government put forward as proven to have damaged national security? >> they cannot ever. >> is there anything we would except as common sense? >> i am glad you asked that question, because another story i got, in late 2000, the source said gave me the internal cia in 1953of the iran tcoup to overthrow the democratically and elected as leader of iran, and i got a 250-page history, and i was going to write about this, and i thought, you know what i should do? i should read about how "the new york times" wrote the pentagon papers story.

i thought, that must be an amazing story, so i went back to the microfilm room and read the original pentagon papers stories, and i was expecting some shocking revelations. i was stunned. all the stories said is the war in vietnam is not going very well, and if you go back and read those stories, it is amazing there was a supreme court case built around them, and it just shows you it is all about the moment, the anger of government officials at the moment because something is getting out that they do not want to get out your good -- to get out. >> one of the surprising things when you get one of these classified files is to see and

the number of newspaper clippings that are classified as a. >> i will tell you something funny that has happened that i can now talk about. i cannot talk about it. [laughter] >> wikileaks was supposed to be a disaster. as far as i know, nothing -- >> i have read a lot of the wikileaks cables. it is mostly ambassador saying the prime minister is a moron. it is like a cocktail party gossip. he can share announced in a class he teaches everything he wrote, and he has argued people

do not understand how good state department people are in white paying abilities -- in their writing abilities. >> if you meet embassy officials in some countries, they always play dumb with recorders. the region and with reporters. you think, are they really that stupid, or are they just playing dumb to? they know what they are doing. they are pretty smart. >> do you think journalist's coming after you will have the same fervor for the truth? >> yes, almost every reporter i have known would do the same thing i have done.

i know for a sign that a lot of people region one of the reasons i am doing this is the close -- is because if i do not i will disappoint of the reporters. -- is a point of the reporters. i am only doing what people expect me to do. it is kind of in the culture of journalism that you have to do this. >> [inaudible] >> not as far as i know. that is one of the good things about journalism. the problem is without a privilege like a doctor or a lawyer, it is difficult. all you have as a cultural tradition within the profession,

especially now that the government does not recognize that any more, but that does a pretty strong cultural and tradition within the profession. >> what do you make of the increase of prosecutions and intensity of this? what is motivating them? especially given that it is really unexpected. parts i do not know. i wondered thought myself. i think it is probably pretty simple. whoever is president does not like no leaks. -- does not like leaks. barack obama may be more

conservative than we thought, and i think he has shown he is essentially continuing a lot of national security policies of those bush administration and across the board, and i think this is part of a larger strategy by obama to insulate himself politically on national security issues from the rights by continuing a lot of national security policies of the bush administration. why he has been more aggressive than bush on this i do not quite understand, because he has gone beyond what he would have had to do to isolate himself. >> he did say when he was campaigning for president that he thought the eavesdropping policy was illegal as a constitutional matter. >> yes, but during the 2008

campaign he voted for immunity for telecommunications companies that had been involved. that was an important issue in the summer of 2008. there was a pfizer reauthorization act that included something telecommunications wanted desperately because they were facing a lot of lawsuits. the senate passed a bill giving them immunity from lawsuits for their involvement in the operation, and obama waited until the last moment to decide which way to vote on it, and he was under enormous pressure from his face, and he decided now to vote for it, and that was considered by a lot of people to

be the first sign of his change on national security issues. >> is it your sense that although it is striking he is pursuing a lot of a grand jury indictments in the area of national security, that is pretty in line with the way he has run the administration in terms of dealing with the press, from reporters i have talked to, if seems his staff is very in control of your your -- very in control. >> yes, i think it is part of his views. i do not think he likes the press in general, which is pretty common for most politicians. most of them hate a spirited --

most of them hate us. i think he is a more traditional politicians then we thought. >> i remember a senator saying, you are the only oversight for the intelligence community. i said, what you mean? you are the intelligence community. >> to you feel about the individual pressures you have faith? >> absolutely. >> do you believe the value of information you have been given access to as far as the individual consequences you face? >> i do. i thought about it at the time.

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. i thought, this is why i got to be a reporter, why i became a reporter. if i am not going to do it now, i should get out of the business. >> you did not hesitate? >> i thought about it a lot, but i decided i had to do it. >> this is the most important

work i have ever done. i felt that way at the time. i felt this is why i became a reporter. >> thank you very much. of view,porter's point why did the 3 did what did the reorganization actually in hindered not -- what did the reorganization actually hinder bowma? >> the national security apparatus has ballooned since 9- 11. it is an enormous now, and it

has made new challenges. one of the challenges is trying to figure out who is doing what, and it is more complicated than it has ever been. you used to think, if there is a clandestine operation overseas it has got to be the cia. that is not necessarily the case anymore. it can be 1 million other people. you now have an enormous growth of contractors, but in the intelligence community, the defense community, other aspects, so there are a lot of secret operations being conducted by outside contractors, and where there is virtually no capital at all, 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 it has also made it easier to find people to talk to because there are so many people involved than ever before, and there are a lot of people who are increasingly uneasy with the size and scale of what has happened. that is really where i think most reporters would find -- and the larger it gets, the more whistle-blowers, out, and that is what i think the government may be afraid of. >> in light of the budget cuts on the federal level, is it a good story to have $1 million

worth of research that led nowhere, to make that in itself a story, and what is the current rationalization for this wasted money? i am just guessing if you ask americans, at least they are andng pharaoh, -- 0thorough, that takes brains. can americans learn this lesson? >> you try to ask specific questions of look into specific stories, but "the washington post" did a really did series on the growth in the intelligence community, and that is something

that i do not know how you keep writing about all the time without focusing more on the specifics. that is what i tried to do, find individual cases of things the need to be correct, focus on the larger issues. >> in reading the judge's decision and knowing what the government has now filed, the judge says one of the reasons they do not need to get your testimony is they have other witnesses. now as i understand it, the government has come forward and said, we used to have other witnesses, but one married the defendant, so she has a spousal

exemption, and the other is refusing to testify, or recanted testimony, and now they really need you. good >> that is the argument. that is what is currently being litigated. that is why we are waiting to see what the judges sign off. she is about to rule on the motion. >> do you think that is the only evidence? >> they have other evidence. they have laid out other evidence, and we have filed a motion along the lines of our doing what you have said, and we have filed a motion countering their argument. i do not know if you saw that. it is on file, are gearing up the government's arguments are speeches -- arguing the

government's arguments are spacious. >> do you think they will hold you in contempt? >> i hope not. we will see. but another question on the nature of national security reporting. it is a very select field in terms of content. most americans have no inside. the vast majority do not have a passport. do you feel as though you have a special sense of responsibility to get the story right so that an audience that may have views about policy generally but has no way to verify it one way or the other gets the right story? >> yes, absolutely, because i

think one of the problems as reporters, we have to deal with anonymous sources because the danger sources phased in talking to ross -- talking to us, so we have to vet the material closely, because we know we are not going to be naming our resources in our stories, so you have to develop a track record of being accurate, and essentially what you are doing in as a reader is accepting the reporter who is writing the story has a track record, so you have to develop a level of trust between the reader and the reporter that the anonymous sources he is talking about in

the story have told him what they have said or that the information is accurate, so you have to build up a level of trust with the reader over time, so you have got to be as accurate as possible. >> you said there were five grand juries now? >> i think there were five prosecutions of people who have been alleged to have a fleet to various news organizations -- to have leaked to various news organizations. >> they are not involving the reporters you know? >> i believe i was the only reporter who has been subpoenaed. >> to you have any sense if your

testimony continues to be quashed, whether that will have some affect on the government's continuing interest in not just you but in that area? >> the reason i have fought this is i do not want them to think it is going to be easy to come after reporters, nikko's if i just caved in to what they wanted, they would go after reporters and all the time. the only reason they are 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 basis, but i think if we start caving, they will, so that is one of the things i have been fighting for, to make them know it is going to be hard to come after reporters, and they should not do it.

[applause] >> my question is a follow up. you mentioned they are keeping it difficult to go after reporters. i wonder if there is an effort to use the force of the pros to expose legislation that restricts and condemns. >> it is open to the public. the obama administration. >> i guess it is more of a name. we had hoover for past restrictions. >> dianne feinstein has said on the record there should not be an exemption in the shield law for national security and not report curator -- in the report.

>> the justice department supported that. the justice department basically wrote a lot to fix that. >> there is an argument that if you cannot do this kind of reporting in almost any country that the government has to maintain secrecy and protect the people, so who are you to decide it is time tune make something public when elected officials decide to take an oath, because that is what they are told to do? >> that is the duty of the american constitution.

>> there are restrictions. >> that is why you go to court to litigate those issues, but i think the personal danger of yelling fire in a theater is different common and which i think is probably what they would try to argue that this is like. they have never been able to prove. >> i will give you an example. remember the story about osama bin laden and his satellite phone? it is a more conservative publication.

that allegedly damaged the u.s. government's ability to track osama bin laden. >> i think he also got the message we were after him when a bunch of cruise missiles rained down, and i think that was a louder message and "the times"story.ost" time he changed all of his tactics. i know this government has argued many times that that is one of the cases they can cite, but the problem is we have a constitutional system that gives freedom of the press and freedom of speech in a fundamental -- as a fundamental right. it is the first amendment, and

that was put into place a long time before the 1947 national security act, which created the cia, so i think it predates and is a fundamental building block of american journalism. in no place to they admit an editor and reporter have the freedom to write what they want, and if we lose that, we lose the uniqueness of the american system, because if we start reining in the american press in this way, it is the most fundamental change we can announce. >> it is one thing to be able to get "the new york times" bureau to come into the white house and talk to them and convince an editor not to run a story, and another thin to deal with

wikileaks, who actually sat of this table, who did not seem to care whether or not they identified people in their cables. what are they to do in this case? >> it is a more complicated case, because you have to get into the issue of who is a journalist. it is the outpouring of data to the public journalism? is it covered by free speech when it is done overseas? is an interesting question, but the legal problem i have is that bradley manning, the allegis source of that information, has been charged with violation of his oath of protecting the information.

that was an alleged criminal act they can prosecute. is the fact of they allegedly received that information, was not in the u.s. military, did not have security clearance, received the information and put it on the web to -- is that a crime? i do not believe it is. whoever got that information and leaked it may have violated military laws. that will be for the court to decide. the publishers of that information and were under no obligation to protect that

information. >> the natural question the arises is is this going to go to the supreme court common and and is there any way you could lose this in the supreme court? will it go to the supreme court? >> in this case? one of the things that has just become clearer is the justice department does not appear to be ready to appeal to the higher court. they are going to trial. they could change their mind, so it is possible it could go to the supreme court. it depends on the rulings that will come out, but we will see.

>> you think it is because the makeup of the court? >> possibly. there have been a lot of obama appointees to the fourth circuit. obama does not want to test how they would vote on this. i do not know. it is an interesting issue. i thought for a long time it might, but as of now, i am not sure. >> jim, if you are in jail, how do we help you to? >> send cards. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you.

>> tomorrow discussion on consumer privacy and internet regulations. this is hosted by a number of organizations compiler and -- concerned about privacy. we will hear from the american civil liberties union and the consumer federation of america, plus the chairman of the federal trade commission. live coverage at 8:50 eastern on c-span 2, and later, michael mukasey and john ashcroft will talk about the u.s. constitution. the discussion is moderated by the former attorney general edwin meese. that is also on c-span 2. coming up, remarks from republican presidential

candidates mitt romney and jon huntsman. both campaigns in new hampshire today. later, a discussion of army this budget. >> they discussed building a memorial to honor dr. king. whats the official dedication of the martin luther king, jr. national memorial. >> republican presidential candidate mitt romney held a town hall meeting in new hampshire. this is the former massachusetts governor's 14th town hall meeting that he held in new hampshire since announcing his run for president in june. [applause]

>> great to be here. nice to meet you. you are taught. -- tall. >> welcome. >> i was told you have a governor who lives here. how are you? nice to meet you. terrific, thanks. how are you doing? nice to meet you today. are you the mom of these guys? how are you doing? i am afraid. good evening -- i am great.

how are you? nice to be here. >> we are from michigan. >> where in michigan? that is where my wife is born. gisn't that something? [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> is that your son? how are you guys beaumont -- how are you guys?

>> how are you? and good, thanks very good. you know this guy year? a son or a grandson. >> great to meet you. edn[applause] >> it is great to be in hopkinton. it is a great place for cathy

and i to be tonight to introduce demand we feel and hopefully you will feel should be the next president of the united states, mitt romney. [applause] what this nation needs is a leader that understands what makes this a great nation, understands it is not washington that causes this nation to be great but the individuals who are willing to go out, create jobs, and produces prosperity and economic opportunity, and mitt romney understands that. we have an individual who understands our freedoms are precious, and we stand up when it comes to those freedoms, and we must lead the world. it is a great honor and privilege to introduce tonight governor mitt romney.

>> thank you, thank you. >> you cannot sit down. that is too cozy down there. you very much. >> welcome to new hampshire again. this is how many times? and with property-tax as, you contribute as well. >> it is an honor to be joined by a great senator from new hampshire and a fiscal conservative who has done a great job time and time again. [applause] a father, husband, and

extraordinary man. he has been guiding me around the state common and and i am going to get a chance to answer your questions. he will take them as well. i thought i would talk about family and some values and which have in my family, and i would get a chance to hear from you and answer questions. we were in manchester, and i said, i would like to get a van like that. we did not have minivans when my kids were growing up. we have station wagons. that was before seat belts were required, and we just piled into the back of the station wagon. my dad had a van, and he took my kids, his grand caves, on a trip across the american -- his grandkids on a trip across the american west.

he did that five times with a group of grandkids when they reach age of 12 or 13. can you imagine being locked in a van for a group of -- with a group of 12 or 13-year-old sarah emma i had been on the trip myself when i was -- 12 or 13- year-olds? i had been on the trip myself, and between the parks, and who my mom and dad would read from a book called "men to match our mountains." it was written by irving stone. the name of the book was taken from a poem written by an appellate from new hampshire, and he wrote a book in the 1800's that said, bring me men to match my mountains, bring me men to match my planes, men with

empires in their purpose hands new eras in their brain. men with innovation and new arrows in their brain. he said, these are people who come true -- come to america, and come they did. they crafted a country that welcomes people with empires in their purpose. they gave us freedoms that were almost unheard of. they gave us political freedom. they give us economic freedom, which is the right to choose our course in life, and people from all over the world wanted to come here. every pioneer, every freedom

seeker and wanted to come to america of. if you want to know why it is america has out competed the nations of europe from which we strong and the more populous nations of asia, it relates to our freedoms. it relates to the fact debt- free people came here and we did the fact free people came here and -- it relates to the fact that free people came here, and our economy grew so that we became the strongest on earth. what worries me is that we have in washington a class of lifelong politicians who do not understand what makes america america of. they do not understand the power of freedom, so they attempt through government to try to guide our lives, and government has never been the source of america's greatness. it is free people choosing our

horse alive who makes us who we are, and i look as head -- choosing what makes us who we are. this president never had the experience, so when things were not going well, he did what he knew, which is expand government. how did that work out? not so hot. you have 25 million americans out of work for only getting a part-time work. you have values going down. i saw an article that said the median income of americans in the last three years has dropped by 10%. 10% decline in the median income of american families. at the same time, gasoline prices have gone up. food prices have gone up.

this presidency has not worked. the president when he was newly elected went on "the today show ," and he said if i cannot turn this economy around within three years, he will be looking at a 1-term proposition. her want to collect. this gentleman here says with interesting. >> take it back. >> that is what we have got to do. occasionally people ask, why you think he has done such an ineffective job? it is the where's waldo e economy. your chances of finding a good job with a good pay are not as good as your chance of finding waldo in one of those books. why has this residency failed to get america strong again

economically? ronald reagan has one of the best lines common and he said it is not the liberals are ignorant. it is just that what they know is wrong. i think the president takes his political inspiration from the social democrats of europe who think the government knows better than free people how to build your business, how to regulate it, and they are wrong. i believe in europe is not working in europe, and it is not going to work here. i believe in america. i believe we got it right, and they got it wrong. i believe the principles of economic freedom are the principles that have kept a strong, and over generations. it has always been the characteristic of america to know that the future is brighter for our kids that it is for us, and today people questioned

that. the american people have everything necessary to continue to lead the world and have an economy so strong we can provide for ourselves and provide for the events. we cannot do the if we turn our economy to our government, so i intend to take back our country from our government and make sure that free enterprise can once again held the american people. i am convinced the most patriotic people on earth, the only people i know who put their hand over their hard during the national anthem, that if we have -- hand over their hearts during the national anthem, that if we have what it takes for

enterprise and investment and job creation, that if we draw on that patriotism, we can keep america strong, and i hope to be one of those leaders with your help. thank you. [applause] now you get to ask the questions you would like to ask, and i am going to go a round room. now you are going to read it. that means it is a scary question will you commit to putting 6 million people on life-saving medication to n the aids epidemic -- to end they aids epidemic? >> i will look at that. here is what i am going to do to balance the budget. i am going to take our discretionary accounts and bring them back to the 2008 level. i am going to take obamacare and

appeal if so we can stop spending that trillion dollars. i am going to take medicaid program and given back to states so they can craft their own program to care for their own court, -- poor, and thoseand i e phase that we do around the world to make sure that we can afford them. -- those things that we do around the world to make sure that we can up for them. when you borrow from china, you have to ask yourself, is this really a central expense? i am going to be very careful, very careful in how we spend our money, and my priority is to care for americans and preserve our freedoms and be able to stand up and defend ourselves and our friends around a war. thank you. yes, sir.

[inaudible] >> a what they new hampshire for being so welcoming. >> if they had known you're not from here -- [laughter] >> [unintelligible] more than anything else, but we need a president right now -- my brother took your side [inaudible] herman cain is having a surge in the polls. allied to give you a chance -- [laughter] >> herman cain is a terrific guy. give him a good luck. i am not going to convince you that my private sector experience is better than his. i will tell you what i did and then you can look it his

background and experience and make that decision. the key thing is that both herman and i spent our careers in the private sector. so i think that is one of the reasons both of us are doing pretty well in terms of public support, because we have not spent our lives entirely in politics. we do understand how the economy works. by virtue of that, people are saying let's let someone as president to know something about the economy and about jobs and how we compete internationally. my experience was this. i went to work in a consulting firm. i thought, i did not know what a consulting firm was when i came out of college, but after my advanced degree, i understood. we would go to companies like ford motor company or like cbs and we would provide advice on how to make it more successful. i did that for 10 years and worked up to be the head of that

enterprise. it now has 25 offices around world providing advice to people all over the world. i learned how to compete around the world in various industries that i consulted to. then i got one of my clients -- what did you go out and put your money where your mouth is? star jerome business. so i did. that business called bain capital is one of the world's most successful in starting businesses and also in buying businesses in trouble trying to make them better and more successful. i did that for 15 years. it is one of the largest and most successful -- and by the way, in my party we celebrate success. [applause] and then after i had done that, i got asked by the people in utah if i would go and take a range of the olympics because they were in trouble and see if i could turn around those games. we are able to do that because i had done that in the private

sector. then asked to come back and run for governor of massachusetts. that was interesting, because i took private sector experience and applied it in government and that work. i was able to find ways to use my skills in the public sector setting. that is something that, if i were herman, i would wish that i had that, too. you do not want to necessarily learn that for the first time as the president of the united states. he is a great guy. vote for either one of us and you will be happy. >> on second amendment rights? >> i believe in the second amendment. i love all the amendments. i will preserve and protect the right of an individual to bear arms, whether for hunting or personal protection or any other legal purpose. that is my own view. thank you. yes, sir. >> median income is down 10%,

but corporations are turning bigger profits than ever. >> some of them. >> with the protest on wall street, a top 1% of americans, the you have any plan or idea how to close that gap? >> i do not worry about the top 1%. i did not stay at night figuring out how to help them. they are doing just fine by themselves. i worry about the 99% in america. i want america to be the best place to be middle-class. i won a strong and vibrant and's rigid process -- i want a strong and vibrant and prosperous middle class. i understand how those people feel. with median income down 10%, with unemployment at nine%, with the president running to keep unemployment below 8% if we let him borrow almost a trillion

dollars and then having failed to do so, with chronic unemployment worse even than during the great depression, the people in this country are upset. and i understand american saying, what is going on? this was not the deal. how can this be? a lot of people are looking for the answer. the answer is to make america the best place in the world for all those companies and entrepreneurs and people with that empire spirit in their purpose to invest and grow here and i go elsewhere. putting walls around the country, that will not work. money goes over walls. wire transfers anywhere, people will invest where they think is best. we need to make america the best place to build factories, to hire people, to educate people, and to live. i have put together a plan to get the economy going again. and it is not two or three things, but you will laugh, it has 59 steps that i will take.

but to get the economy right again, we will fundamentally change the relationship between governments and citizens. we have to crack down on those who do not follow the rules. one of them by the way is china. i have seven things that i would -- [applause] i have seven major topics and one of them is trade. it is a good thing to be able to sell what we made to other people. that has to happen. we are productive nation that can compete with anyone. but china chiefs and they have been cheating for years and they are killing our jobs and our employers by doing so. on day one, on day one, i will file -- through executive order, i will label china as a currency manipulator allowing us to cut tariffs on their goods that are coming into our country and killing jobs. if we will have to get serious about china.

please come in here, in the blacktop. >> [inaudible] >> i think the ideal setting to raise a child for a society like ours is between a man and woman in the marriage. i think as a society, we are wise to encourage marriage between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising our kids. [applause] >> yes, sir. >> about debt reduction. the american people favor a combination of increased taxes and reduction in spending. my understanding is that you do not want to increase taxes. can you discuss to us why you do not want to increase taxes in a combination of spending cuts and increased taxes to reduce the

debt? >> if goes back to the scale of government. a few of us remember john f. kennedy. he was in your political memory. i am one of those. when john f. kennedy was president of the united states, government at our level -- all levels, it consumed 27% of the total u.s. economy. that is how big government was very today consumes 37%. -- today it consumes 37%. and today they want to raise taxes a little bit more. i have seen that movie before. i have seen it in california where they raise taxes higher and higher and their income tax in california at the highest level is 10.5%. and they're still not able to balance the budget. they just need a little bit more. government will spend whatever you give them and then some. my view is to not take more of the money of the american

people. let's talk about living within the means that have already been provided to you. the other challenge is if you take money away from people, it now government can use it, except those people could also use it. what would they use it for? in some cases, the start businesses to open shops, hire people, or buy stuff. in which case, they would put people to work. and you take away from those people and give it a government which is putting in place another stimulus program. if it works last but -- if it works like the last one, it will not create a job. let's let the american people keep what they haven't yet the government to live within its means. that is my view. thank you. >> what is your view on abortion? [laughter] >> that is not a question that i expected from you, but i am glad that i got it. [laughter] i am pro-light.

what i would like to see happen -- pro-life. this is a tender and sensitive issue and good people come on both sides of this issue. i respect people with different views on this issue. all like to see the supreme court to say, look, we will overturn roe v wade and return to the states the authority to decide whether they want an abortion or not. that is the way it was before roe v. wade. >> thank you for being here. a quick question to follow up on a question posed earlier about funding aids programs throughout the world. the american foreign aid budget is about 0.5% of our national budget. i understand and can respect the decision for fiscal conservatism. one thing i am concerned in terms of looking for candidates

is extending a sense of the values that we want to bring throughout the world to help others. i like to know if they run the administration would be committed to continuing to keep -- a romney administration would be committed to keep that at 0.5% of the budget, and if we can get 6 million people on a tie retro viral viruses -- anti- retro viral vaccines, and in terms of funding pepfar and the global fund. >> i will not commit to that funding level. i have not evaluated it in the context of the entire budget and what our priorities would be. but i can say this -- and a time when we are borrowing money to pay for things, and i hope you recognize the significance of this. the idea that we borrow more money for ourselves and our

generation, knowing that you are going to be paying for it, your generation, not mine. i will be long gone. but when the interest is paid off, i am very low reluctant to borrow a lot more money to do wonderful things if those things could be done by people making charitable contributions or other countries that are wealthy -- look at china. how many trillions of dollars does it take for china to step up and find these things? let's work globally with the nations that are lending money like china, and others, let's work with them as well as with the borrowers to say to find a way to deal with these extremely important human rights issues and issues that relate to the saving of american -- a saving of human life. that would be a priority for me, but how much we spend and borrow in order to do that, that is something i will work on as we put our entire budget together. thank you.

>> always impressed with your experience in private enterprise and capitalism. maybe one of your weaker carriers might be far and policy. if you are elected president, how will you conduct your foreign-policy or you do not seem to have much experience? >> i was in south carolina on friday and spoke at a set of old, the military college. i laid out -- the citadel, the military college. i laid out my perspectives on foreign-policy. reminiscent of a book i let -- read long ago by dean acheson, the secretary of state under harry truman, he wrote a book called "presence at the creation." truman in atchison does a project designed a new farm policy. instead of being isolationist and staying home and not worrying what happened in the world, we're going to be

involved in the world. when we were not, bad things happen. i believe that america needs to be involved in the world. the second part of their parental -- principle was to share our values. human rights, democracy, free trade, free enterprise -- share those principles with other nations. i believe that has to be an extraordinarily high priority. number three, we're going to be strong. we will be no strong -- so strong that no one wants to test as. -- test us. i want our military to be so strong that no one would ever tested. i want this next century to be an american century, where america leads the free world and the free world leaves the entire world. for me there is no question that our military must be the strongest and most robust in the war. [applause] -- in the world. how will have a very strong military, and that the

foundation of all of these things, being involved in the world, not as the policemen, but being involved to keep the world from erupting in conflict so that we do not have to become the policeman, so avoid conflict by drawing people toward modernity, free trade, and democracy. i will keep america strong, and finally, in order to keep your nation strong, you must be a police car with their allies. idolatry our allies like the friends that they are and i will not turn our back on america's allies around the world. -- i will treat our allies like the friends that they are and will not turn our back on america's allies around the world. by in front of you there. >> the economy. [unintelligible] >> the environment, ok. that is about the same. [laughter]

they are related. i believe that we should at exacting standards on those that pollute our air and water, and we have an environmental protection agency that oversees the protection of air and water. sometimes they take the epa and turn it into an agency that stops the development of our economy and kills jobs. that i will not allow. when the environmental protection agency regulates how much carbon the oxide is a midget, i am saying that it's beyond the scope of the responsibility of the epa. that is not something that i would -- is emitted, i am saying that that is beyond the scope of the responsibility of the epa. we have extraordinary amounts of natural gas. new technology allows us to get natural gas out of the earth, which is far less polluting and carbon dioxide-emitting than coal and oil. let's use those resources to become independent and become an -- and have clean energy as

well. i will keep our air and water clean and i will get us off our and energy. thank you. >> i have a follow-up question on gay marriage. i was raised by two women, my mother and my grandmother. i was wondering that would be different. i was raised by two women. >> there are a lot of folks that get raised by one parent, through divorce, for debt, or parent having a child out of wedlock. but in my view, society recognizes that the ideal setting for raising a child is when you have a method of two working together, one male and one female. as a society, we say, we're going to call marriage what it has been called for 6000 years

or longer, a relationship between one man and one woman jury that is my own view. -- and one woman. that is my own view. i would support letting people who are of the same gender form, if you will, partnership agreements if they want a partnership and have things like hospital visitation rights and similar benefits of that nature. let's say, over here. you're next. >> hall on the questions about hiv aids funding. >> i've got nothing more for you. >> you are willing to preserve that. >> i did not say that. >> there's a thing called a financial transaction pact that

you mentioned about not raising the 9 & taxes, we appreciate that. we do not like high taxes in new hampshire. but the financial transaction tax is a very small tax on international things, it is going to banks and corporations. it is a very small tax that could actually pay to put every single person that has hiv in the world into a debt-retro viral treatments. -- anti-retro viral treatments. our solution the funding things like an ad as americans, we can promote our values of democracy around the world. we would appreciate it if you would look into that and other commitments to funding global health and foreign-aid around the world. >> thank you. yes, sir.

>> back to the environment. you want to be energy independent. what is your take on the tar sands pipeline from canada to the united states. >> absolutely. we've got oil and america at the week ended, bring it into the u.s.. i like to use the oil shale for developing the marcellus gas in pennsylvania, we had a new line in north dakota. let's develop our own energy resources. we are in energy rich nation acting like an energy poor nation. we need to stop spending $500 billion a year buying energy outside the country from nations that do not like us. let's develop our own resources and use them to become energy secure, and to create jobs for americans heard the president has this green jobs initiative. how many green jobs have we seen? and the number of jobs that we

lose to traditional energy will exceed the number that we gained through his green at energy initiative. i like renewable sources of energy, but let's not pretend that wind and solar alone will get a secure. we have to have carbon-based fuels and nuclear fuels. let's develop all of our resources to have america to develop jobs here and to become energy secure. thank you. >> what your plans for iraq? >> if is straight forward at this stage. we're bringing our truth strength level down -- troops strength level they entered one of the failures of the obama administration, they have not put in place an agreement with iraqi government to determine how many of our troops will remain, a troops status agreement. we should have enough troops there to support the iraqi military to hold on to the gains that they have accomplished. they are now managing their own efforts in iraq, meaning the

iraqi military, but they need the support of our true spirit that is roughly 20,000 of our troops. but we do not have a status of force agreement in place. that means that it is conceivable that our troops could be subject to criminal prosecution if they were to carry out some kind of military action while they are serving in iraq after december 31 of this year. the president should have negotiated a status of troops agreement by now. that should have been done. so that our military knows that they can stay in the country and provide the resources which the iraqi military needs. but ultimately what is happening, we will draw down to roughly 20,000, as opposed to 2000 which is what it may have in -- in the been because of this lack of agreement. iraq will be in a position of defending itself. thank you. go ahead. it is the same question, i do not have a new answer. ok.

[inaudible] [applause] >> if i have answered that question. yes, sir. >> [inaudible] 47 percent of americans do not pay taxes. how can people vote on spending money when it is not their money? what do we do about that? >> i would think every american like to feel that they're contributing to the defense of our country. this is something worth having a discussion about. i do not want a raise taxes on people who are not paying taxes it appeared in many cases, they

are poor, but 47% is a big number. that is a heck of a big number. that is why someone talked about going to the fairtax, a tax on consumption and everyone consumes, but there are some problems with the way that people have constructed that. very high income people see a big reduction in taxes and that is not what i'm looking for. middle-income people see higher taxes. you walk away for everyone to contribute. i will look very carefully at that. every american deserves the privilege of being helped -- helped to support our troops and our nation in defending liberty. how exactly to do that, i will give that some thought three let me tell you what i would do with taxes, by the way, that may influence to thinking. i think the people that have been hurt most by the obama economy are the middle income americans, people at the low-end receiving some help in this at the end, people at the high-end

doing very well, thank you very much. the great majority of americans are having a real hard time. but i would do to help middle- income americans is to say for anyone making $200,000 a year and less, you pay no tax on interest, dividends, or capital gains. but taxing your settings. they can save for college, for retirement, for whatever they want, and not have to pay taxes on their savings. thank you, thank you very last question during -- thank you, i thank you. >> i have a couple of questions i like it answered. i want to know what you think of term limits -- the line-item veto, and if you win, will the white house [unintelligible] [laughter]

>> term limits -- wouldn't it be wonderful if we had people go to washington for some period of time and then go home and get a real job again? that would be a wonderful thing. i would love to see term limits and washington for senators and congressmen as well as the president. i won it long enough so that they can stay in understand how the government works, but i like to see term limits. that is number one. number two, how remembered the other, line item veto. absolutely. it is hard to get a line item veto to pass the muster of the supreme court. we had it for short while and the supreme court said to bill clinton, who was president, what you're doing is unconstitutional. you cannot exercise a line-item made of. but i have one and massachusetts. i like the line-item veto and i will work if i am president to

find a way to within the structure of the supreme court decision, get a line-item veto back to the white house to stop the excessive spending on programs we do not need. and finally, the summer white house. i will lovelace make a couple of visits, but i'm sure the neighbors would not like the traffic. i am not planning on running the will perot country club -- the wolfboro country club. >> is it ever red sox had on the podium. -- you should have a red sox have on the podium. [laughter] [applause] >> these days i am thinking of patriots, have to be honest with you. >> its evidence that you cannot solve problems by throwing money at them. >> there you go. [laughter] [applause]

>> now that, that is a good reason to wear a red sox had. my goodness gracious. one more question. yes, ma'am. >> [inaudible] >> i will make sure that social security is saved. with all this discussion about social security, anyone currently retired or near retirement does not have to worry about social security. it is not one to be changed. it is not going to be reduced. nothing will attack social security. it is solvent for current retirees and for those near retirement. but for people in their 20's and 30's and 40's and early 50's, we will have to make changes to make sure the program is there for them. i have laid out some things to make sure that the program is

there for them terrify answer is not to raise taxes. -- for them. my answer is not to raise taxes. if it raises the retirement age down the road. those of the directions i would take. but i will preserve and protect social security and honor the promises made to our seniors. i want to say thanks for your help tonight. it is warm in here. i apologize for keeping you in a room over 100 degrees for this long. i am not worried about the fire marshal. i am worried about the health manager. thank you for spending time with me. i appreciate your help. i look forward to being with you for many, many more times. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [unintelligible]

[unintelligible]

>> thank you. good to see you. right there? what is your name? how are you. oh, that's great. there we go. thanks. can i sign that for you? look at that. oh, there we go. how're you? [unintelligible]

>> the got a baseball writer. there we go. -- we've got a baseball right here. every gun. -- there we go. we've got to get going. thanks, god. have we got a camera? who is going to take a picture?

there we go. [unintelligible]

>> thank you.

we have got to get going. [unintelligible] >> thank you. >> we have got to get going. >> if goodluck. >> thank you, thank you. sure, you bet. there you go. thank you, guys. >> now presidential candidate john husband talks about his foreign policy plans. a former u.s. ambassador to china and utah gov. spoke at southern new hampshire university. the event was hosted by doe

council of new hampshire. from c-span is "road to the white house," this is about an hour. >> good morning, everyone. i am the director of the world affairs council of new hampshire is. we are so pleased that you are joining us for all foreign policy conversation with candidates to date. our mission is a non profit, non-partisan organization is to promote organ that -- understanding around the united states, never more critical than in a presidential primary year. and last midterm election, less than 10% of americans reported considering foreign-policy when voting, despite the legal world affairs. it is a national inevitable the world of their councils of america to engage america and the most pressing national

security issues facing our country. here the world affairs council of you have served -- a new venture, we hope that by offering this discussion, voters will be better educated on how global issues affect their lives, heading to the ballot box-year period to find out more about a local programming, visit our web site. i am honored to welcome, rich, former governor of pennsylvania, and the country's first secretary of homeland security. please join me in welcoming governor ridge. [applause] >> thank you for that warm and gracious reception on such a beautiful day in this beautiful state. thank you very, very much. i have spent most of my life in public service and i look back on the life in years that i was getting a government paycheck. i remember the 12 years i spent in washington, d.c., and six of those years old occurred when --

wf those 12 years occurred win hwen ronald reagan was presiden. i remember america in 1981 and 1982, the economy was really suffering, and the notion was we still have to cut taxes and we had to stay the course. the difficult and challenging election and the economy got stronger and we became even more engaged under president reagan paused leadership. -- under president reagan's leadership. i said, who in this field of men and women is equipped with the experience and frankly the mind set to deal with creating economic strength at home and projecting america's authority and influence in a positive way around the world.

i decided that that man had served as governor, a businessman, and he had served as ambassador in a critical part of the world, singapore and then in china. there are a lot of trends in america that are alarming. we have political isolation as to what is this disengage from the world. -- isolationists who want to disengage from this world. there are people like yours truly that say we need to be more in gauged and perhaps in a different way -- we need to be more engaged and perhaps in a different way. i look at the governor's record back home and kind of doing it the reagan way. you cut taxes, you streamline government. you make it accountable you still have to understand that

there are some people that need your help and you are going to help them. so protecting -- projecting economic strength and maintaining our values. not just our military, but our values. america has a brand. the brand is our value system. we know how to create jobs in america because you cannot be secure unless you're prosperous, and you cannot be prosperous unless you are secure. for the economic protectionists, we say no. 190-plus countries out there. they are potential markets for us. the country need someone that understands that they intersect. build your comic at home -- build the economy at home. that is the reagan way. that is what we did 30 years ago. i think that my party and my country needs governor huntsman

to be president. he understands there is peace to strength. but not just military strength, but the soft power of our values and the strength of our economy. i am pleased to be with my friend governor huntsman today and reassert publicly my admiration for him. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, governor ridge. i would also like to introduce the dean of southern new hampshire university and to think southern new hampshire university to help us present this program today.

please join me in welcoming the dean. [applause] >> thank you. i like to welcome governor huntsman back to the state and to the university and to thank him for is remarks to our graduate students last may. he set out his vision for our country's foreign policy. he chose an american university as a backdrop. higher education remains the world's gold standard. an area where we continue to lead all nations. southern new hampshire with over 900 international students on campus has a strong tradition of reaching out into the international sphere. we foster communications and

understanding with students around the globe. we host the world affairs council of new hampshire. it's excellent programming to understand international affairs here in the state. as a former ambassador to china, governor huntsman has unmatched experience in the international sphere. he represented the united states and china in dealing directly with the chinese government. he brings a valuable perspective in the role of the nine states in the world today -- in the united states. we're privileged to welcome governor huntsman. [applause] >> thank you very much. and, anna, thank you for your willingness and leadership in hosting this event today. to governor tom ridge, one of

the great public service of my generation. to the ambassador, it is an honor to be with you, my friend. and to mary kay, who look -- and makes you look a lot better by sitting between you. [laughter] the state representatives drisco, my good friend who does so much for veterans, it's an honor to be here. it is my second time at new hampshire -- southern new hampshire university. i was commencement speaker just a few short months ago. i am reminded of a chance to get a second show at this great institution. i am reminded of something that took place between winston churchill and george bernard shaw when churchill was not doing so well in terms of the popularity polls. george bernard shaw was in town opening for a play and cents an

-- sent an invitation to prime minister churchill and said, please enclose two tickets of the opening night of my play, one for you, and one for a friend, if you have one. churchill wrote back and said, due to the press of business, i cannot attend the first show, but will be delighted to attend the second show, if there is one. [laughter] you have given me a second show, and i'm grateful. a president's approach to foreign affairs, how he views of america's role in the world, it is perhaps the most critical function of the sacred office. this has been true throughout

our nation's history, whether it was truman during the atomic age, reagan and soviet union. it has never been more critical than today. we are a nation mired in multiple military entanglements overseas and in the grips of an economic crisis here at home. these are tumultuous times not just for our nation but all nations. instability in the middle east. debt crisis across europe. the looming threat of nuclear proliferation. it the world needs american leadership now more than ever. yet we are struggling to provide it. president obama's policies have weakened america and a diminished america's presence on the global stage. been must correct our course.

-- we must correct our course. i have lived overseas four times. i have seen the world as a diplomat. i have seen it as a businessman and as a humanitarian. i have lived and seen what our most significant competitor nations are doing to prepare for the rest of the 21st century, and i have a clearer vision of what america must do. i believe the united states has an opportunity to redefine its place in the world and reclaim the mantle of global leadership. mike administration posture approach to foreign affairs will be guided by that which defines the american exceptional was some, and that is our values -- liberty, democracy, human rights, free markets. america'svalues our best gift to humanity. to those nations who share our value and who we call our

friends and allies, we will restore trust and strengthen our bonds both economically and militarily. to those patients who resist the -- to those nations to resist the the -- who resist the unstoppable march of human and economic freedom, we will make clear that they are on the wrong side of history by insuring that america's light shines bright in every corner of the globe, representing a beacon of hope and inspiration. we will establish a foreign policy doctrine that reflects our modern world, simply advocating more ships, more troops, and more weapons is not a viable path forward. we need more agility, more intelligence, and more economic engagement with the world's. so how will we do this?

erased the old map and nation- building. engaged our allies and fix our core. this is how we will fight the enemy we have and renew america exceptional as an. -- exceptionalism. i would like to discuss the five planks which will comprise my administration's foreign policy. first and foremost, we must rebuild america's core. at this critical juncture in history, our nation's greatest challenge does not emanate from outside our borders, but from within. nearly 15 million of our fellow americans are unemployed, to unite the dignity of a job. -- denied the dignity of a job. millions more are so disparate they have given up even looking. our national debt continues to street towards unsustainable levels and is itself a national

security issue. in new hampshire, a share of who -- a share a -- a sheriff who is served for 30 years told me that for the first time ever, his folks are handing out foreclosure notices to the middle class. all this effort trillions of -- after trillions of dollars in government spending in massive bailout. our nation's core is weak. our people are hurting. america cannot project power abroad when we are weak at home. his increasingly evident executives -- is increasingly evident we have lost leverage in the international community. we saw the palestinians make an end run around the american-led peace process because they lost confidence in it and our ability to lead. the world is a better place when america leads.

the world is a safer place when america leads. our interests are best served when america leads. we must regain strength at home, returning people to work, reducing our debt, restoring confidence in our future, fixing america first. that will be my most urgent priority. it will require more than half measures. it will require reforms to our tax and regulatory systems. i have a plan that one economist calls the most progress growth -- pro-growth proposal ever by a presidential candidate. i will drop the steps on the front steps of congress on day one and will not stop fighting until we get the job done.

we need a foreign policy of expansion, not containment. we need a foreign policy based on expansion. the expansion of america's competitiveness and engagement in the world through partnerships and trade agreements. free trade supports nearly 18 million american jobs and establishing new lines of trade with international partners represents an enormous wealth of untapped economic goodwill. 95% of the world customers live outside our borders. the united states is party to only 17 of the more than 300 trade agreements worldwide. we will see greater trade opportunities with nations that share our values and believe in good government, open markets,

and rule of law, as well as nations willing to engage in reform efforts toward those ends. it starts with passing the three pending trade deals, which president obama has resisted for three years and which could boost american exports by more than $10 billion and create tens of thousands of american jobs. we should aggressively pushed for the conclusion of the trans- pacific partnership which will open markets in australia, brunei, chili, new zealand -- chile, singapore, and vietnam. we need to pursue free trade agreements as aggressively as china. china is in the game, we are not. america must support the round

of negotiations aimed promoting trade between developed and developing nations. this is an opportunity for the unstoppable tide of economic advancement to lift all ships, and a false to america to lead this effort -- and it falls to america to lead this effort, because no one else can. energy independence and is not only another critical piece of our farm policy. -- our foreign policy. every year american cents more than $300 billion overseas for imported oil -- every year america sends more than three under billion dollars overseas for imported oil -- more than $300 billion overseas for imported oil. those days must end. we must right size our integuments.

-- current foreign entanglements. we're risking american blood and treasure in parts of the world where our strategy needs to be rethought. afghanistan was once the center of the terrorist threat to america. that is no longer the case. the soviets were the air for -- or therefore -- were there for nine years. aerial bombing and strafing and helicopter gunships and tanks. we have been there 10 years and are taking a different approach. we're nation-building. our presence should not be focused on nation-building, but rather on counterterrorism. we cannot social engineer other countries. we cannot social engineer our own cities. it is social arrogance to think we can turn tribal leaders into

democratic leaders. it is wishful thinking to think our troops will prevent further instability or even sell war. -- even civil war. our men and women have done their all in afghanistan and iraq. they routed to the taliban killed off al qaeda. they have taken the fight abroad so that we don't have to face it here at home. our nation has done its duty. after 6000 lives lost and more than $1 trillion spend, it is time to bring our brave troops home. as they return, we will take care of them and help our veterans transition from the battlefield to the home front. and remind every citizen in this country how much we value those who are willing to put

their lives between our freedom and the enemy. in afghanistan, we could go from 100,000 boots on the ground to a much smaller footprint in a year, while leaving behind an adequate number of counterterrorist and intelligence functions and special forces presents, and i believe we should -- special forces' presence. only pakistan can save pakistan. only afghanistan can save afghanistan. we should focus right now on america saving america. our future is not in the hindu kush mountains of afghanistan. it is in the schools and universities to is like this one, which educate our leaders

and our entrepreneurs of tomorrow. it is in silicon valley and in the induction course of the -- the industrial corridors of the midwest, and in our farms and factories and our ports that ship our product to the rest of the world. let me be clear -- pakistan, which possesses a nuclear weapons capability and a fractured military that sponsors terrorism, does demand u.s. attention, we must acknowledge certain realities as we contribute -- as we consider the wisest way forward. this is not a relationship based on shared values. this is transactional at best. many americans are suspicious i aid, the united states is held in low esteem throughout the country. we cannot dictate fundamental changes upon an age old civilization from afar. as president, i will protect

american security interests in pakistan without being naive about islam obama's incentives -- islamabad's incentives and long term interests. there is another event is to a more judicious approach toward foreign entanglements. it helps prevent our military from being stretched too thin and unable to respond to a direct security threat either to america or to one of our allies. this includes standing shoulder to shoulder with israel as they manage a host of new challenges brought on by the arab spring along with more familiar challenges such as a hostile iran, which will continue to be a transcendent challenge of the next decade. i cannot live with a nuclear- arms iran. if you want an example of what i

would consider the use of american force, it would be that. a reexamination of america's role in the world also requires a re-examination of our military and defense infrastructure. it may surprise some people to learn we spend more on defense today than in the height of the cold war. we spend more than the rest of the world combined. counter-terrorism needs to be a much larger part of our foreign policy. we must be prepared to respond to threats from outside and other terror cells which emanate from a much more diverse geography, including the horn of

africa, pakistan, and the asia- pacific region. we also must adapt to devolving needs of the attack. this means greater intelligence gathering and more agile special projections, which can respond swiftly and firmly to terrorist threats in any corner of the globe. the traditional roles of armed forces will remain relevant for the soviet region for the foreseeable future, we do for the foreseeable future, training and equipping forces will continue to grow going forward. we must also transform our orientation. i have come to believe we are embarking on asia-pacific century in which america must and will play a dominant role.

by almost any objective measure the center of gravity, global human activity is moving towards the pacific region. embracing by neighboring a dramatic change to the look of the military. asia-pacific region is a maritime theater, and whereas europe and was mostly a land theater. good for the united states, asia pacific features a collection of bilateral military alliances in contrast to nato in europe. asia-pacific is full of disputed violence and resources claims when compared to relative calm of other regions. we are a pacific nation common and an and our vital interest in that region cannot be

compromised. number four, we must raise and our relationship swiss the powers of the world. our traditional relations remained vital to american security, and we must also work closely with our friends in nato and the european union to bring russia closer to the west, but i believe the re-emergence of two asian lands, china and india, will most influence how american navigates the 21st century. first sign of. there is no other relationships that if miss managemen -- is mismanaged cause those troubles.

the stakes are enormous, as are the challenges and opportunities. naturally, we will disagree often, whether over taiwan's's security needs, human rights, or the protection of intellectual property rights. we must also pressed china to open its markets to our exports and increased internal demand so chinese owet a fundamental question is who we also find areas of cooperation region will we also find areas of cooperation and? we buy their products. but for aour bonds, truly healthy relationship, we need to infuse the u.s.-china relationship with shared values. until that time, we should begin to build a broader, more cooperative relationship. the united states and china should start collaborating on

clean energy technologies, combating global pandemic, and encountering piracy on -- and countering piracy on the high seas. we must also work with india, a country that shares religious tolerance, respect for human rights, and a commitment to democracy. we must begin with negotiations to reach a trade agreement creating hundreds of millions of additional consumers, but our relationship needs to go beyond simply economics. the ark of countries but lie along indian ocean border some of the most important energy and trading lanes in the world. those are critical for the free flow of commerce and remain vulnerable to threats and large and small. to that end, i welcome the indian navy's transformation.

is presidency, i will increase our cooperation with india, with the expectations of a share responsibilities -- that they share responsibilities and recognizing india's a merger role, i will also support their bid to become a permanent member of the un security council, as is fitting for a country representing one sixth of humanity. we must take care of our own neighborhood. for too long the united states has neglected its commitment to the countries in our backyard, the western hemisphere. the result is and lost opportunities, strained relations, and escalating security challenges. latin america is not only a neighbor with whom we share a

rich history. it is also a major source of untapped economic opportunity. the u.s. exports three times as much to latin america as we do to china, but many nations in our hemisphere are experiencing a terrifying surge in violence that threatens to disrupt this progress. a wave of bloodshed that has swept across mexico has left 35,000 people dead, creating casualties inside america's borders. mexico stands ready to work with the united states in combating the drug war, and we should commit to continued in, -- continued cooperation, including enhanced military engagement. in guatemala, escalating violence has resulted in an average of 55 murders a week, threatening an overloaded and

justice system. these problems are not contained within guatemalans borders. the country has emerged as a final offensive now narco activity, threatening our neighbors and ourselves. i will not upset the status quo. i will support our neighbors to sternly eliminate these narco terrorists. both columbia represents the best of america's engagement in our hemisphere. after years of violence, colombia weekend the drug cartels and while professionalizing its military and police forces. colombia now aspires to be a regional leader in latin america, and they are on their way.

there is tremendous potential within brazil, the fifth largest country and seventh largest economy. good brazil is rich in opportunity in the energy and technology industries, which we should recognize with bilateral trade negotiations, by forging partnerships and alliances, we can help develop political and economic stability throughout the region, thus creating an environment in which all the people of latin america can rise. we must not forget that peace and prosperity throughout our neighborhood promotes peace and prosperity at home. i would like to close by sharing of thoughts from my time in china. emotionally, one of the most powerful things i did as impassive door was meet wis dissidents and -- as the ambassador was to meet with

dissidents. i would go to them. sometimes they would come to the embassy. we did this quietly. andas a peril to them close some official doors to me, but what was always clear 9 was that those seeking reform true strength from the nation's values the freedom of speech, religion, the press, half a world away they could see this country's light. dissidents around the world can see our nation's flight. all the troops in the world cannot give you that light. you have it, or you do not. that is america's value in the world today. when we shine our life abroad, and we are invincible.

ronald reagan said america was an empire of ideals. if we maintain our empire of ideals, not only will be further the cause of liberty, a human rights, free markets and free enterprise abroad, we will strengthen it right here at home, and that is a cause of around which all of our citizens can and must unite. thank you for inviting me and such warm hospitality. it is an honor to be with you all. [applause] >> we have time for a few questions curiosa -- for a few

questions. >> thank you for your thoughtful remarks. one thing you criticize the obama administration for was the failure resulting in the palestinians going to the ua in for a vote on statehood. knowing the israeli settlement agreement is seeing direct negotiations between the parties, what would you have done to make negotiations happen between israelis and palestinians from mark >> and get back to -- between israelis and palestinians? >> we must recognize ethnic now might not be the time for negotiations. of we have to listen very carefully to what the leadership in israel has to say about the timing issue, and if

now is not the time, i do not think we can force the process, but what we can do is stand shoulder to shoulder with israel and remind the world what it means to be a friend and ally of the united states. so long is there is no blue sky between the united states and israel, it does not matter what happens in the region. it does not matter if there is a time of uncertainty like we have seen in the past. that is what is most imports, the country call -- that public articulation of the world is what it means to be a friend and ally in the united states. [applause] >> with your experience in china and their unwillingness to

change the dollar value, would you put a tax on people who come into the united states? >> china is moving its currency, although progress has been slow. it has been 5% or 8%, but we factor in inflation, which is 5% or more in china. they have to be looked at to get your net movement. they are moving not because the united states is telling them to move, but because they are making a historic transition from the largest export machine this country has seen two more of a consumption-based model, and in order to let the military -- to let the middle class move up, they have to have a currency closer to market

value, so they are moving and based upon their own domestic interests. i would like tuesday -- tuesday the united states is causing the movement, but in large part, a chinese are moving because they see it in their interest to move. what i would like to see the president do is take the message coming out of capitol hill, which is we are going to move forward with legislation. i think ultimately that would be bad, because it would result in a trade war, and the last thing you need is a trade war, particularly during a recession. it would impact all the people who could not afford a trade war, small businesses or exporters. i would take that to congress and sit down with the leadership of china and say, here is where

my congress is coming from. we ought to move that further a little more aggressively. you need leverage to get things done with the chinese, and part of my speech is because our realize that we need to leverage, and traditionally our leverage has been a strong economy, where we are able to negotiate trade alliances. when our economy is weak, we have little value. as the will of congress to provide a little bit of leverage as a time when we can use it? absolutely it does. we will have our ups and downs now that we are reflecting on 40 years of bilateral relationship. we have gone from zero in trade to four under and billion

dollars in trade, soon to be the largest economic relationship this world has ever known. there are a lot of things that are good evening long term. it will allow more exports. that is a job creator in the united states, so for every billion dollars, but is probably 10,000 jobs you create on the home front. that is a good thing. i would like to see our ability to find more collaboration. we know we disagree, and those are going to be tough and profound and broadcast to the rest of the world, but in order to balance what i think is an important relationship, we must also do some work in terms of finding areas considered common ground, areas of commonality,

whether that is economic and rebalancing, new energy technology, whether that is finding breakthroughs in human disease. there are things we ought to work with to bring an abundance in trying to improve human kind. we are in it for a long term. the 21st century will be the century in which the united states and china try to forge a relationship economically, politically that is sustainable. we have a lot of work to do, and it is going to require the type of leadership that understands how the chinese system operates, knows their history, and i bring this to the table, and i am looking forward to

using the to help my country curio a -- now to help my country. >> you can control congress. >> thank you. a writedown hear a. -- right down here. >> i like what you said about india, and it makes a lot of sense, but given the relationship between our country and pakistan, doesn't that provoke pakistan? >> of course it would provoke pakistan. they make certain diplomatic gestures to china to try to counteract what we do, but i think in the name of security in south asia, a strong u.s.-asia relationship is going to be critical. i think it serves our security and military interests and

providing greater stability in what has been a troubled part of the world. i like the idea of a fortified bilateral relationship with india that allows us a chance to interpret what is happening. we need to know where the bad actors are. we need to understand the mudra some movement, and the way young people are being -- the madrassa movement, the way young people are being an educated. i think that serves not only our security interests, but the security interests of the world. >> we have time for one more question. >> in your speech, you did not mention the united nations at all.

the uc the united nations as declining in influence and -- do you see the united states as declining in influenced? do you see them of threatening the sovereignty of the united states? >> i see them taking an overwhelming role. some of the work has been done. what i do not like is the inherent anti-americanism i find exists within the united nations and an anti-israel fires. good as we regain our strengths by rebuilding our economic corp., that allows us to do more on a bilateral relationships with other countries. the united states leads the world, and we are in a much better position to do that by having a strong economic basis, shoring up relationships with

friends and allies who need to be reminded what it means to be a friend and ally of the united states. thank you very much for having me. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> thank you so much for joining us and all of you for being here today.

>> may i take a picture with you? iraq's sure.

come on down. -- wsure. come on down. >> it is a pleasure to have you. >> thank you. >> you gave me and advise when i was doing the student commencement. thank you. thank you for being here. i greatly appreciate that. >> taking a picture? >> thanks for being here.

i appreciate it. >> it has been an honor having you here. thank you for driving all the way. i have got to go. thank you for being here. how are you? how old are you? >> ten. >> i have a daughter mwho is 12. i am sorry i did not bring her a long. how old are you? >> 9.

>> do you have time for a quick one? >> sure. as i hope i do not break the camera. i appreciate it. >> you are very kind.

>> they have had one before, and they are likely to have one again.

taiex i am a retired navy captain. my son-in-law is william irving. parks my goodness. -- >> my goodness. >> he was a great guy. >> that would have been years ago. iraq have you read the book "monsoon" no -- >> have you read the book "monsoon"?

>> no. >> great to see you. >> do you think he will carry it? perhaps we can carry new hampshire or take a close second. thank you for your service to your country. we appreciate it. but what was your plan on friday? >> we talk about specifics. we talk about not just defense

spending but thinking about the 21st century. we talk about lee engaging not just pakistan -- about 3 in gauging not just pakistan but china. -- reengaging not just pakistan but china appearing in thank you. i appreciated. >> good to see you. >> you are the one. >> all little fabrication.

>> thank you. >> has she been spending any time on into? >> last year we spent a lot of time on its. >> we are an inspirational country. >> my daughter came in from out of town to meet you. parks are working in a synagogue during your -- in a synagogue.

>> can we have someone take your picture? >> there we go. >> did it work? thank you. >> there is a conversation i once heard between tony blair and angela merkel. tony blair said, how come this economy is so strong, and she said, because we still make things. what do we make? we make derivatives. what do we make? >> our number one export happens to be airplanes. we are the largest exporter in the world.

our manufacturing base was only 10% of g.d.p.. >> how do we win in iraq? >> -- how do we win it start? >> we have a tax policy that is broken. we have so far out read and -- that they have not been able to do it. >> logo and germany. looking at the quality of the products they are making a spirited >> it is much harder to get the tax policy right and embark on energy independence. the manufacturing dollar is

going to look at alternatives. we can do it. >> do you think we will regulate enough to compete t with asia? >> we need to be able to build a manufacturing plant. if it brings us jobs and economic expansion, allows our nation to focus on research and development, but is going to be discovered. and we took our economy to #one. we created a flat tax, and entrepreneurial activity that followed was such that we were able to triple. >> about the new tax, what are

you going to do about hedge fund managers and how they are taxed? >> you have got to find the balance. >> good to talk to you. >> i appreciate it. >> you guys are great. >> thank you very much.

arts we will see you. great to see year. take care. >> watch more video of the candidates, see what reporters are saying, and track the candidates. easy to use, it helps navigate with a spoke of states, candidate bios, and that is all span.org/campaign2012. >> the army secretary john mchugh said the army would be able to function with the spending cuts. james risen faces jail time for refusing to reveal his sources

for a book about iran. tomorrow, a discussion on consumer privacy and internet regulations. this is hosted by a number of organizations concerned about privacy issues. we will hear from the american civil liberties union and the consumer federation of america plus the chairman of the trade commission. later, michael mukasey and john ashcroft will talk about national security issues and the u.s. constitution. a discussion islam moderated by the former -- is moderated by the former attorney general edwin meese. the pentagon will implement $350

million in budget cuts over the next 10 years under a compromise reached in august by congress to raise the debt ceiling. we will hear the arm secretary john mchugh talk about those reductions next. he spoke for about 30 minutes. >> last year you might recall this was the first opportunity i had to speak with you as the army secretary because my first appearance in 2009 i had only been on the job of few weeks, and i was still trying to find my way our round -- my way around. now i have gone from being the new been to the old timer. since i first spoke to you in 2009, since last year, i have now worked with three different

chiefs of staffs, two secretaries of defense, to deputy secretaries of defense, to chairman, and two vice chairman of the joint chiefs, and i have to tell you i would have thought i would have a better parking space by now, but i understand my place. as i do the calculations, i am going through a chief of staff colin speech, so you might want to watch your back, but it is a great honor to be here. i cannot think of any place i would rather be, but i am a little confused as to why we are kicking this army celebration off on columbus day.

io is thought of it as a navy holiday. when he left, he did not know where he was going. when he left, he did not know where he was. when he came back, he did not know where he had been, but before he left he needed three new ships. [applause] i am willing to bet my dear friend that we have had a good rivalry, and we can do that,

because we both recognize the partnership are services have enjoyed on so many levels is more important to the strength of our nation and our nation's defense. i knew that would get a laugh. all the services are facing a critically important year, a year that will shape the face of our national defense for many years to con. we need to make sure we give them the support they require to belden and and not resilience

and all the care necessary when they come home, but there is one strain others have felt but in recent years we have not. we have not had to give it a lot of thought, and that is the stress and strain a decade of war has had on our federal budget and the american tax payer. for some time it seemed as though the department of defense and the united states army has had near limitless resources for whatever we need, but after 10 years of war and a shaky global the economy, that is changing. the department of defense is understandably under significant pressure to do better. all you have to do is go on tv and go online, read a newspaper, and you know that each day the president, congressional leaders

are struggling to try to deal with the budget crisis, and some of that effort will fall on our doorstep. it already has, but secretary gave sworn before he left that it will stay off for a good time. of the -- despite defense budgets, we have an obligation to preserve strategic options provided by the president of the united states, by maintaining modernized forces capable of radically the playing deceptive combat power. no major conflict has ever been won without boots on the dead, and our national interests and demand that while we set about the task of reshaping this army

for years ahead, we remain steadfast and continue to support the greatest land forces the world has ever known. [applause] as secretary panetta of serv, we do not have to make a choice between fiscal discipline and national security. he said decisions must be made thoughtfully and strategically. the decisions we make must preserve our ability to preserve our core natural breeding national interest and not break faith with the men and women who are fighting for us because we asked them to. our military must remain the finest in the world. it must remain an agile force

that can deter conflict, a project power, and win wars. that is a great challenge. that will bring about difficult times and decisions, but i will tell you is about an opportunity to transform the army, not just to come to terms with fiscal constraints of today, but to better meet the challenges we know we will phase tomorrow. it is a reality that every time we have endeavored we have often miss the target. at a speech at west point, secretary gates said when it comes to predicting the future, we are perfect. we have always gotten it wrong. post korea and beyond, and

budget-and force structure decisions were made in a fashion that depleted our forces and strain the quality of life for our soldiers and families. we have seen this downturn coming for some time. we have been analyzing the best way to meet these challenges, and i can tell you we are better positioned than at any time in our nation's history to deal with the fiscal realities in a way that truly makes sense. all of us have to understand it. i think we do. the army is going to look different in the near future than it does today. we think we can handle the challenge, but what is critically important is no matter what the force ultimately

looks like, we have sufficient time to ensure we do it in a balanced way, that we have what is necessary for training, equipment, and we can continue to stand by those troops, who even in the darkest hour stood by a us, never wavered. we have been instructed if you do not learn from history you repeat it. let's hope we have all learned from history as we debate and decide the future of land power and the future of our army. there is no question this decade has placed great strains on all of the branches. there is no question that each of us has unique needs to

rebuild in this decade of conflict and to prepare for the wars ahead, but what truly concerns me as i read as the analysts is the suggestion that somehow some of the services recovered at the sacrifice of others, but the united states probably does not need a strong and decisive a standing army, what looks more like transformers and saving private ryan. great leaders like douglas macarthur and george marshall warned about cutting too much too fast and about the importance of having an army in place but is ready to answer americas call any time common and anywhere -- anytime, anywhere, even some not so great

leaders, like a new york congressman who warned about the dangers of cutting too far, putting our nation into risk. my colleagues and i rode to secretary rumsfeld, warning about cuts to the army. we said why we support efforts to insure our military is prepared for future conflicts, reduction in the army's structure would clearly undermine that galton -- that goal. one of my own newspapers was critical of that effort, accusing us of clinging to relics of the old 20th century force.

they said it makes sense to consider reducing the nation's forces. then came september 11 and an enemy that did not share the newspaper's viewers. i can see the point. there is no question supremacy have to be achieved and maintained. we must develop and utilize faulkner available technology in to establish every means of superiority available to us, but i would argue one need not happen at the expense of others, and we must make sure we have a balanced approach to meet our nation's future defense need. in "this kind of war" there is a

passage that is familiar to most of you. he said, you may fly over land forever. you may vomit, pulverize it now, -- you may pulverize it, but if you want to keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground by putting your young men into the mud. those observations are is relative today as they ever were, because iraq the end of the day we did the most important thing to gain and insure victory. we march. providing between 50% and net 70% of deployable forces, and i

think it is important to remind people but while our army makes up 1/2, and we consider that half the rigorous and -- if we are going to do the right lane -- the right thing, something has got to give. we have been working hard to try to figure out ways to reduce costs, to create greater efficiencies. last year i told you i found a

that had given men hope. hour by hour, those fighters buckner more of us -- that were new threats rose to the national security interest. our training and development to personal systems must be able to adapt a sufficiently, but it is structured much as it has for the past decade. we have set out to change that. i have issued a number of

directives. among those efforts are rooting out research and development to see if each task force is even needed or relevant. we are working on a sweeping changes and capital management. 60% of officers have when of the worst performing jobs in army. human capital management is the most important in a leased agile

system. you cannot have an army without people. people is what we are about. if they tell us we are not managing, that is tough to take, and i am not just talking about selecting the best people. it is how we manage human capital, how we continue to build on the investments we have made on civilians as well as soldiers, how to make sure they are still present when we bring those warriors home, a path guaranteeing we are ready for the future. if we do not do these kinds of

things, others will do them for us. we will risk seeing hollowed out. this is our chance. it is our moment to transform. let me give you one other example of what we have done to restructure. the army service acquisition program was based on findings from a task force and i created. of the $243 billion the army has to stand in 2010, $140 billion was spent on contracts, and more than half of that was spent on services. good the translates into 260,000 actions awarded by 225 different

offices carried out by thousands of different people. i thought there might be a better way to do that, and i think we have found it. last week i directed a new structure that will consolidate 45% of all services into just six portfolio management centers. those are medical services, transportation, an electronics and communication, and knowledge-based services. this will firmly improve oversight of effectiveness by helping us taylor and apply and monitor the results of a better buying practices foreign approved acquisitions as well us better pricing. these actions, structured by us,

implemented by us, will help us work in positive ways to deal with the budgets that will be formulated for us by others. we can, we must, and i promise we will do better. i the army's top civilian, have one of the greatest honors. yes, i get to help kick off this week with what amounts to a prime-time address. that is the owner, but there is a challenge. the challenge is -- that is an honor, but there is a challenge. the challenge is to make this remotely interesting