graduate school of journalism for just over an hour last week. >> more so than any other newspaper in the country, "the new york times" has reporters that focus on the part of the government in the united states. jim and i crossed paths in 1998 when he joined "the new york times." before that you were at "the los angeles times." you are well known to all of us as somebody both to respect and to worry about beating new on a

story to read -- beating you on a story. we will talk about a kind of reporting that is unique to the united states. there are very few countries in the world where you are allowed to report on the national security of the country and its national security organizations and apparatus. most countries regard to their secrets, and what they called the secret part of the government with laws and enforce them so that reporters are generally jailed or news organizations are not allowed to report it, and that includes the united kingdom, canada, and almost any other country you can think of. the united states is one of the few countries in the world that allows that kind of reporting. he began in the 1960's in an informal way, mostly done by freelancers, and then became

part of the establishment press, of particularly around the pentagon papers. you might all remember that it was a famous story where "new york times" writer learned about a pending invasion of cuba that he was willing to report, and the president of the united states told the washington bureau chief you could not publish that story, they did not, and six months later john f. kennedy called "the new york times" and said it is too bad we did not let you published the story. almost 10 years later it was the pentagon papers, and from that a series of reports in the u.s. media that led to a tradition backed up by congressional hearings that changed the nature in which we report and

think about national security to in this country, and the way we as journalists are able to report on it. unfortunately, over the last 10 years, the tradition has been moving in the other direction, and one of the people who has tried to forcefully and aggressively keep that tradition going is sitting right here, jim verizon -- jim reason. he told me had gotten some calls from his lawyers in washington, and the case that threatens him with possible contempt of court, and consequences, will be going to trial on october 17. this is one of the reasons why this is being videotaped, because the fear is you will not be around to talk. [laughter] >> it could happen. i have to recommend you the case

that he will talk a little bit about tonight, although he is restricted. he explained he will not be able to fully answer some questions because he may have to testify for what he says might be used in some way against him in the near future. if he says "i am sorry, i cannot comment" that is why. it is not because he does not want to. i recommend the indictment of the united states of america versus jeffrey sterling, a former cia official who allegedly was a source of jim's, who is facing criminal trial. mr. sterling is alleged to have told james risen about a case involving a cia operation in iran. i think he could talk a little bit about it. could you talk about that

tonight? >> yes. >> it is detailed in his book "state of war." chapter 9. we should explain that part of also what -- what is also in the book is a fact that you have heard about. the national security administration on orders from the president began to intercept phone calls, e-mail, and other communications from u.s. citizens after 9/11 in violation of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, a law passed in 1978. this was done on the orders of the president of the united states, secretly, and james risen is a co-author of the story that won a pulitzer prize for revealing that in the pages of "the new york times. [applause]

>> this was a year after they've learned about this. those of you who are all part of our symposium know that we questioned about this, and they say the reason they held it for a year was because it was not fully reported. we know that james risen had put this information in the book, which was scheduled to be published two or three months after the story appeared. >> two weeks. >> two weeks after the story was to appear. in the filings, and james risen has already been through a struggle with the bush administration about grand jury subpoenas related to that

revelation and who was his source. the bush administration dropped that case. the obama administration came in. the expectation was be obama administration would not continue this process. they changed their tactical approach. instead of dropping the process, they decided not to commune a grand jury to find out who the sources were, but instead, chapter 9 of this books, which is about a clandestine operation that failed, but some would say was a debacle in iraq, therefore the "new york times koko was not involved in a legal proceedings. -- times" was not involved in a legal proceeding. before i hand the floor to him,

i want to say one of the more startling things about what is going on is the obama administration currently has five federal grand juries investigating leaks to the media from the national security area, including this one, more grand juries and more investigations then all the presidents of the united states since the passage of the espionage act, and its amendment in 1950. it is a phenomenon that i think most people are not aware of. as of today, the consequences of that are something that james risen has to live with. james wright -- james risen. [applause] >> i think lowell bergman just gave my lecture. [laughter]

>> that was very good. >> thank you. i stayed up last night and read the whole thing. >> damn. what was said was true. when i would like to talk about is why i think this is important today, and what i think are the ramifications for society. what happened with this case was i was subpoenaed, as lowell bergman said, on chapter nine, as it relates to an operation cit -- cia in the year 2000 in which a cia asked a russian scientist who had defected to the united states to oversee blueprints of a nuclear weapon to the iranians. they thought that was a good idea, to give iranians nuclear blueprints.

they claimed it was a great idea because the blueprints were flawed, and this would throw the president's off track. what i was told it to the iranians off track. what i was told -- the iranians off track. when i was told was the operation was struck off from the start and was reckless, and almost certainly aided the iran nuclear weapons program, which is why i wrote about it in my book as a part of a larger chapter about the degree to which iranian operations by the cia had been mismanaged and had been dysfunctional, and that as a result, 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 -- the federal grand jury was impaneled 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 got my phone records, bank records, credit card results, travel records, airline records, e-mail results, and whether or not they were 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 judge, 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 assault on the press, and instead they got a judge that actually, in my opinion, believes in the first amendment, and eventually crushed the subpoena from the grand jury. they actually quashed two subpoenas from the grand jury and suppressed the third subpoena of may from the trial after the actually indicted someone -- of me from the trial after they actually indicted someone from this case. currently, the last subpoena to testify was suppressed and now the government is filing a series of motions trying to get

the judge to change her opinion. so, we are kind of waiting the results of that. the reason this case has been important is that this is the first time, according to my lawyers, they believe, 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 uphold an important tradition in the united states, which was badly damaged since war on terror began. as you may remember, the claim case led to a series of subpoenas against reporters, into a lengthy battle that led judy miller of "the new york

times" to go to jail, patrick fitzgerald, who was a special prosecutor, was given independent powers by the attorney general at the time, and he essentially decided that he was not going to recognize a reporter's privilege, and began to subpoena reporters all over washington. this was something new that had broken down 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 said, an unspoken agreement between the government and people that covered national security from above the post-watergate area -- era, on, where they would conduct leak investigations on the stories, but never do anything about it. it was like the scene in

"casablanca" where they say there's gambling going on, and the guys says yes, round up the usual suspects, and it kind of like everything died. no one thought it was important. we all kind of understood as long as you let the government now where you are working on it and give them a chance to talk to you they would accept, more or less, what you are doing. that all changed with the claim case. it was the great unintended consequence of the libby criminal case. i know a lot of liberals and progressives do not like to think about the fact that the pressure put on the government to go after judy miller and send her to jail had an enormous cost to the american press corps, especially the washington press corps.

it led to a breakdown of the entire system -- this ambiguity that had been built into the system for 30 years disappeared almost overnight, and now the government, both republicans and democrats, no longer feel any compunction about a subpoenas for reporters, and prosecuting leaders, sending people to jail for talking to reporters. i think what we are now seeing with the obama administration is this really does cross party lines. at first, people thought it was just george bush, but in fact, what it shows, i think, is that everyone in power wants to try to cut down, control the power of information. they like to leak themselves. the white house leaks more than any other institution in washington, and they lead to people who will write what they

want to write. what they do not like is when someone else week's embarrassing or politically damaging information to reporters who write those stories. so, they are trying to essentially close down the avenues of embarrassing, politically inconvenient stories, and limit the areas of national security reporting into, kind of, and accepted box, where you know where -- they kind of make sure reporters know you can only go out within these limits, otherwise there will be penalties and consequences, and essentially that, as lowell bergman said, is, in my opinion, an effort to create in a defacto sense without having to have congress approve it, a form of the

british law that outlaws reporting in certain areas of government secrecy. i think that if this 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, ever in history, is to ever prove that any story in the newspaper or on television ever truly damaged national security. the fact that, you know, the american press has never, in my opinion, harmed american national security, even the case you pointed out earlier in world war ii where a "chicago tribune" revealed -- this was a classic

case. they wrote a story saying that japanese codes were broken by the united states, and franklin roosevelt was furious about the case, and wanted 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," ended did not make any difference in war. that was -- and it did not make any difference in the war. that was probably the closest case you could ever come to affecting national security, and it made no difference whatsoever. i think what bothers me the most about this is you can tell the they are trying to impose limits on the freedom of the press. they are very clearly, in the filings they filed in my case,

explained in great detail that they think i went too far. i went across accepted boundaries. i wrote things that were out of the accepted boundaries for american national security reporting. so, they, government, wants to create for itself the power to decide what is expected national security reporting, and what is not, and that, in my opinion, is unconstitutional, and that is why i'm 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. i would be happy to open its to questions, and maybe if we ask questions, we can keep going and

talking in whatever direction you want. >> we have a question. mike, here? the producer person? where is he? the sound person? let me explain since i stayed up last night and read these documents that are online, and later you can get the winks, but before we start with the first question, when you said a call out solid -- when you say "outside the bounds of acceptable practice," the government says that on the iran story, which also happened with the eavesdropping story, you and your editors want to the white house, right? you seem to be on a shuttle to the white house regularly, although it is only about four

blocks from the bureau, to talk about your story, right? >> right. >> should be published this, will it damage national security? there will be a group of people there, and on this case it included a now a professor at stanford condoleezza rice, who i understand might be a witness in the trial, and that at these meetings it was made clear to you and your washington bureau chief, who is now the executive editor of a local vendor times" that if you publish it will damage -- "new york times" that if you publish this it would damage national security? >> that is one of the declaration stated the case. >> if so, "the new york times " agreed not to publish, and

that story has still not been published. the government is making the argument that because "the new york times" did not published the story, therefore he stepped outside of the bounds of exceptional journalists compared >> right. that is what i was referring to -- journalism. >> right. that is what i was referring to. the only reason i hesitate about getting to the details on that is because that is an issue under current litigation. >> ok. so, do we have any questions? >> i am a bit confused about the timeline. [unintelligible] if the "new york times" knew about it one year before, the question in my mind is did the

new -- know about it before the election, and what with the results be if they published before the election? >> did you all hear the question? ok. the question was a coat the new york times" published the story in late- -- "the new york times" published the story in late- 2005, but hadn't been published before the 2004 election, would that make a difference? >> i have thought about that. i think everyone involved has thought about that. you could go either way. it is hard to tell. in my -- it might not have had any effect at all. it could have. 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 try to write the story as soon as you can get it

in the paper. >> yes, the question here is did it drive you crazy but it did not get published before the election? >> i was pushing for it to be published. [applause] >> i have said that before, so. >> question over here? >> thank you very much for speaking with us today. do you think that you are still under surveillance by the government? are they still investigating you? secondly, how has the government surveillance effected 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

the judicial actions going on that i do not know about. i know that they have fought about -- i know that they did conduct leak investigations of other chapters in the book, too, that never went to a prosecution, so i do not know whether they are doing surveillance now. >> he called me up one day and said you are in my files. [laughter] >> that was funny because when i was first subpoenaed in 2008, my lawyers design -- decided to do a freedom of information act request for the government to give them everything they have on you, and the first response was we cannot tell you about ongoing investigations, but we will get back to you on closed investigations. about a year or two later i got

this huge envelope from the fbi, or the justice department, and at -- and it was all of these old leak investigations they had done, including stories lowell bergman and i had done together, and it was hilarious to go through them because they were taking them so damn seriously. some of them were stories i cannot imagine they were doing investigations of. lowell bergman and i did a really good story together about -- do you remember the russian spy robert hansen, who had a lot of personal issues? >> the fbi agent who was a russian spy. >> he gave up the fact that the u.s. had dug a tunnel under the russian embassy in russia, and he told the russians about that

-- in washington, and he tell the russians about that right away, and we had written that in 2001. i found this huge file of page after page of investigations of me and lowell bergman. >> he did say something that i have experienced personally, and that i think is important, and that as i have set at the desk of an fbi official who is in charge of counter espionage, and they are complaining to me the code to not worry about leak investigations because every time we have to talk to a journalist the attorney general always says know. we cannot subpoena journalists. this was 10 years ago. in fact, in the middle of the conversation, a gentleman walked into his office, who had actually been here at berkeley,

at one of our symposiums, and was in charge of etch will counter espionage, and he listed the counter espionage and he listed -- counter espionage and he listed the call directory and said he needed to check if he had talked to lowell bergman. i was sitting right there. [laughter] >> the problem was it was on spoken, and there was creative ambiguity built into the system. nobody wanted to admit that we had this bargain with the government where they would go to the region through the exercise of doing the investigations, -- go through the exercise of doing leak investigations, but not do anything about it, and that

changed overnight, and open the floodgates to prosecutions, investigations, and put much greater pressure on news organizations from the government. that had a chilling effect both inside the government on people who might consider being a whistle-blower, and it also had any effect on news organizations and reporters who have to be -- have to keep this in their mind about what is going to happen to you if you write about certain things. >> remember, now, the beginnings of national security reporting that we were talking about began during democratic administrations in the early 19 -- early-1960's, and they really hated it, the kennedy administration, the johnson administration, and now the obama administration has actually made this into an effective means of the prosecution of the press or

leakers. there are five grand jury investigations. >> five indictments. >> pending now. >> he speaks of the government doing this. the government, is, unfortunately, not a computer. it is a bunch of guys with carriers and agendas. what is the highest ranking -- careers and agendas. what is the highest ranking official whose name appears in the action and how high does it have to go? >> the subpoena has to be approved by the attorney general personally, so eric holder approved the subpoena, and prior to that, michael mackenzie and .lberto gonzalez i

i think this goes to the white house counsel, and i'm sure it goes to the president to subpoena a reporter from a large news organization with the potential of putting them in jail. so, on paper, it goes to the attorney general, and i think it goes beyond that, too. >> the shift that you document, the need to protect leeks with respect to national security, is that a leading cause in your mind of the failure to pass a federal shield law? >> yes. i think the shield law, if you do not know -- a shield law -- there has been legislation stuck

in congress for several years to give reporters a form of a privilege that would protect them from these kinds of subpoenas. the federal shield law has been stuck in the senate. i think it passed the house a couple of years ago. in order to get approval from the white house, and even the obama white house, they had to agree to a larger 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 that really the only people that get subpoenaed in washington are, in most cases, at the federal level, doing national security reporting, so it has basically

gutted the shield law. after they gutted the shield law, they let it die in the senate. so, they gutted id and killed it at the same time. that is too bad. the atmosphere in washington since 9/11 -- this traditional balance between civil liberties and security has gone all the way over to security on virtually every issue. there is no real constituency for civil liberties or the first amendment in washington. nobody really cares about reporters and what happens to them. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> how your legal expenses

handled, and how did you pick your attorneys, and things like that? >> my book publisher has handle them for the most part. recently, this has been going on so long, my lawyers have agreed to do this pro bono. they have been very supportive. >> that is a former u.s. attorney. >> yes, david kelly, the great lawyers. >> nothing like free lawyers. [laughter] >> given what you described as the atmosphere in congress, is there any activity on the part of publishers, media organizations, reporter organizations, to try to put pressure on, or to change that atmosphere? >> well, they have been pushing the shield law. newspapers and other media

groups have been trying to get the shield law, but it has been stopped -- i do not know if it ever got out of the senate judiciary committee, but it was stuck in the committee for a long time. it may have gotten on the floor, but it died. it is basically been in limbo for a year or two. after they got this compromise on national security reporting, which they thought would make a difference in passage, he did not make any difference in passage. -- it did not make any difference in passage. >> where is the line in your own mind on when to publish and when not to publish? are there other important stories, stories they you'd been to be important that did not make it into -- you been to be to be important that you

decided not to publish because of the threat to national security? >> there is always a balancing act you do in your own mind. when you talk to sources, there are difficult decisions. i have had a lot of experience with that over the years because i have covered this stuff. i covered the cia, starting in 1995. so, i have heard explanations from them countless times about many stories where they would say do not read that, or do not write this. one of my favorite stories that really changed my mind about how to except their version is sort of like the bay of pigs story. in 2000, i think it was, i found out, it was two thousand, or early-2001. i found out the cia had a team of officers in afghanistan

trying to work with the number alliance to kill bin laden. once i found out about it, i called the cia for comment, and george kennan, who was then the cia director, called me personally, and said to not write that story, you will get my guys killed. i said ok, i will not write the story. so i did not write the story, and then 9/11 happens. i finally wrote the story after 9/11, but then, over the next couple of years, as you might remember, one of the big debates in washington once they created the 9/11 commission, and you have the joint inquiry, was why did the cia not do more prior to 9/11 to get bin laden? after going through all of the

documents and all of the history on that, i later wondered was that operation that the cia was doing just a token operation in order to say they were doing something when they really were not, and if i had written about that at that time, would it have caused a debate to happen in washington about whether we should get more aggressive about bin laden or not? bin laden knew all about those guys. he killed two days before 9/11 to get him out of the way. that really made me think about how much you should listen to them. obviously, you listen to them, but how much independent thought the you have to bring to these issues and not just accept what the government is saying? it played a big role in how i

thought about those issues. >> i am not a journalist. maybe this is common knowledge to journalists, but in the last 50 years, the last 100 years, what stories can the government put forward as to have proven to have damaged national security ever? can not.they we>> is there anything we could except as probably? >> i am glad you asked that question. another story i got, a source gave me the internal history of the iran cue, that the cia mounted a cue to overthrow the

democratically elected leader of iran. i had this internal history, and i was going to write a big story about this, and i thought before i started writing that i should read how "the new york times" wrote the pentagon papers story when they had another internal secret history. i thought that must be really an amazing story, so i went back into the microphone room and read the original pentagon papers stories, and i was expecting some shocking revelations. i was stunned. all the stories said it is the war in vietnam is really not going very well. if you go back and read those stories, it is amazing that there was a supreme court case built around that. it just shows you that it is all

about the moment, the anchor of government officials at the moment because something is getting out that they do not want to get out. >> question over here? >> one of the surprising things when you get one of these classified files is to see the number of newspaper clippings that are classified. >> i will tell you something very funny that has happened in my case that i can now talk about. well, i cannot talk about that. [laughter] >> the wikileaks business was supposed to be a disaster, but as far as i know, nothing -- >> i have read a lot of the wikileaks tables saying -- has

julian assange same prime minister x is a moron. >> i know someone who uses the documents as a way to liberate writing abilities. he can share now in a class everything that he wrote, and he has argued today that people cannot understand how good state department people are in their writing ability. >> that struck me. as a reporter i was saying to lowell bergman, that embassy officials always play dumb with reporters, and you ask them questions, and they say i did not know that. then, you think are there really that stupid, or are they just plain dumb, and the thing about these tables is they actually know what they're doing. they're pretty smart. >> my question is do you think

journalist's coming after you will have the same fervor you do for the truth? >> i am no different from almost every reporter i know, who would do the same thing i am doing. you know, i know for a fact that one of the reasons i am doing this is i'm afraid that if i do not i will disappoint other reporters. i am only doing what people in the profession expect me to do. i do not think it is anything special beyond that. so, i think this kind of in the culture of journalism that you have to do this. >> i'm wondering if the culture has changed? >> well, not as far as i know.

that is one of the good things about journalism. the problem is without a shield law, and without a privilege like a doctor or a lawyer, it is difficult -- all you have really is the cultural tradition within the profession, especially now that the government does not recognize that anymore. but, that is a pretty strong cultural tradition within the profession. >> what do you make of the increase during the obama administration of the prosecutions and the intensity of this? why? what is motivating them? especially given that it is really unexpected, or was?

>> i do not know. i have wondered that. i think it is pretty simple but whoever is president does not like leaks. there is executive power is bipartisan. people like executive power, and barack obama may be more conservative than we thought. i think he has shown that he is essentially a continuing a lot of the national security policies of the bush administration 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 right by more or less continuing a lot of the national security policies of the bush administration. why he has been more aggressive than bush on this?

i do not quite understand. he has gone beyond what he had to do to insulate himself. >> he did say when he was campaigning early on for president that he thought the nsa eavesdropping policy was illegal as a constitutional matter. >> then, during the campaign he voted for immunity for the telecommunications companies that had been involved. if you remember, that was an important issue in the summer of 2008. there was a bill, the reauthorization act, which included an amendment that the telecommunications industry wanted desperately, because they were facing a lot of lawsuits for their involvement in the nsa operation. the senate passed a bill, giving them immunity from lawsuits for

their involvement in the operation, and obama waited until the very last moment to decide which way to vote on that, and he was under enormous pressure from his base. he decided to vote for immunity, 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 that he is pursuing a lot of grandeur investigations and indictments in the area of national security reporting, that it is pretty in line with the way he has run the administration in terms of dealing with the press? from reporters i talk to, it seems like his staff is very in control of the message, a lot of the time, in that they are

restricted with access and use that to their advantage. >> yes. his view both on national security policy and his view of the press -- i did not think he particularly likes reporters or the press in general, which is pretty common for most politicians. most of them hate us. i think he is a much more traditional politicians bent -- politician than people thought. >> i always remember a senator on the intelligence committee saying to me you are the only oversight for the intelligence community. i said what do you mean, you are the intelligence committee? you are the only oversight. [laughter] >> do you believe the value of the information you have released to the public is worth the consequences you have faced time-wise, money-wise?

absolutely. >> could you repeat the question? >> do you believes the value of the information is worth the consequences that you have faced? >> yes, i do. as i said, i think that -- i thought about it at the time. i think i decided that with the nsa story, this and other stories, i decided that if i do not write this story, i should get out of the business. this is what you are in the business to do. if you are not going to do these stories, what are you going to do because these are the best stories you can ever get. during that time, i thought this is why i became a reporter. if i am not going to do it now, i should just get out of the business, sell. >> did you question your

judgment when you said we are holding this? >> sure. i debated it. i thought about it a lot. i decided, you know, i had to do it. it was -- i think that, as i said, this was the most important work i had ever done -- what was in this book and what was in "the new york times" at the same time. i felt that way at that time to. i felt this is why i became a reporter. >> question? >> thank you very much. is this on? from a reporter's point of view, what did the reorganization of the national security into the homeland security apparatus

actually help or hinder in journalistic access? >> journalistic access? well, the apparatus has ballooned since 9/11. it is gotten bigger, bigger, and more bloated. it is just enormous now. it has made it, from a reporting standpoint, one of the challenges is figuring out who is doing what, and it is more complicated than it has ever been. you know, you used to think if there is some clandestine operation overseas it has to be in the cia. that is not necessarily the case anymore. it could be 1 million other people. you now have this enormous growth of contractors, but in the intelligence community, the defense community, and other aspects -- there are a lot of

secret operations being conducted by outside contractors, where there is virtually no accountability. so, the sheer growth of the budget, the community, the outsourcing of intelligence operations, has made it far more difficult to keep track of everything, but in some ways it has made it easier to find people to talk to. there are so many more 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 will find that the larger it gets, the more whistle-blowers will come out, and that might be what the government is afraid of.

>> yes? >> in light of the budget cuts on the federal level, trying to tighten the belt, is it a good story to have that big envelope full of maybe $1 million worth of research that the taxpayers paid for that lead nowhere? to make that itself a story? another piece of the question is what is the current rationalization for this wasted money? i am guessing that if you ask americans on this phrase well, at least there been thorough, and the problem with the americans thinking that is that being thorough takes brains. can americans learned that

lesson? >> i do not know. as a reporter, you try to ask specific questions and look into specific stories, but i think one of the things -- "the washington post" did a good series on the growth of the intelligence community, and that is something to me that i do not know how you on an ongoing basis bright about that all the time without focusing on the specifics, and that is what i try to do. find individual cases of things that need to be corrected, rather than focus on the larger issues. >> may ask you a question? in reading the judge's decision to quash the subpoena last time around, and knowing what the government has now filed, the judge says one of the reasons

they do not need to get your full testimony is they have other witnesses. therefore, she quashed the subpoena. now, as i understand, the government has come forth and said we used to have other witnesses, but one married the defendant, so she has a spousal exemption, and the other one is refusing to testify, so therefore -- or who recanted their testimony -- and now they really need you? >> that is their argument. yes. [laughter] >> that is what is currently being litigated. that is what we're waiting to see what the judge is going to decide. she is about to rule on their motion. >> do you think you are the only witness the government has? >> no. they have other evidence. they have laid out other evidence.

the government has filed a motion along the lines the they are doing what you just said, and we have filed a motion counter. i do not know if you have seen that. >> i have not seen it yet. >> it is on file, too. the government's arguments along those lines are suspicious. the government's -- the judge should not change your mind. >> do you think the judge will hold you in contempt? >> i do not know. i hope not, but we will see. >> microphone? >> another question on the nature of national security reporting. it is a very select field on the whole in terms of content. most americans have no insight whatsoever. the vast majority have not left the country, do not have a passport.

covering the field, do you feel as though you have a special sense of responsibility to get the story right, to tell the story in a particular way so that a story that might have views about policy generally, but no independent way to verify one way or the other, gets the right story? >> yes. absolutely. i think one of the problems we have to do as reporters is that we have to deal with anonymous sources because of the danger that sources face in talking to us. so, we have to vet that material closely, because we know we are not going to be naming our sources in our stories. so, you have to develop a track record of being accurate, and essentially what you are

eventually going as a reader is excepting that the reporter who is writing that story has a track record of accuracy. so, you have to develop a level of trust between the reader and the reporter that the anonymous sources that he is using, or talking about in the story have told him what he said they told them, or that the information is accurate. you have to build up a level of trust with the reader over time. so, you have to be as accurate as possible. >> you said that there were five grand juries now. >> i think there are five prosecutions of people who have been alleged to have leaked to various news organizations.

>> the whistle-blowers, not involving the reporters that you know? >> right. i believe at this moment i am the only reporter who has actually been subpoenaed. >> do you have any sense if your testimony continues -- the subpoena for your testimony continues to be quashed, whether that will have some effect on the government's continuing interest in not just you but in the area? >> the reason i fought this was that i do not want them to think it is going to be easy to come after reporters. if i just caved in to what they wanted, they would go after reporters all the time. the only reason they are doing it now is because they got away with it in the case, but i think

they are afraid to do it on a regular daily basis. i think if we start caving, they will. that is one of the things i have been fighting for. to make them know it is going to be damn hard to come after reporters. station not do it. -- they should not do it. [applause] >> my question was a follow-up to that. you mentioned making it difficult to come after reporters. is there an effort to use the force of the press to expose specifically who is behind legislation that restricts and condemns your reporting? >> well, it is not a secret.

>> i guess more of a name. we had hoover for past restrictions. is there a specific person -- >> dianne feinstein has said publicly on the record that there should not be an exemption and a shield law for national security reporting. >> and president obama supported the loophole for national security reporting. the justice department supported that. the justice department rewrote the law to fit that. >> there is an argument that you cannot do this kind of reporting, that the government has to maintain secrecy, discipline, protect the people. >> right. >> so who are you to decide it is time to make something public when public officials,

elected officials and others, take an oath to maintain the secrecy of the information. because that is what they are told that is what they have to do to make the system function. >> that is the beauty of the american constitution bank the first amendment allows the freedom of speech for every american. >> but there are restrictions on what that speech can be it in dangers others. >> that is what you go to court to litigate this issues. i think the personal danger from yelling fire in a theater is different than -- i think that is probably what they would try to argue, that this is what this is like somehow. they have never been able to prove, first of all, any real damage from any story in any

publication that i know of. >> i will give you an example. remember the story about osama bin laden and his satellite phone in the washington times? a more conservative publication. that allegedly damaged the u.s. government's ability to track osama bin laden. >> yes, i have heard that debated. i think osama bin laden got the message that we were after him when a bunch of missiles rained down on him and his camp. that was a more collaborative message in the washington times story. [laughter] he trains to all of his tradecraft after the 1998 cruise missile attack -- he changed all of his tradecraft after the 1998

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

american press in this way, it is the most fundamental change we could have in this society. >> 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 thing to deal with let's say julian assange and wikileaks which sat at this table a couple of years ago who did not seem to care whether or not they identified people. what are they to do in that case? >> well, it is a more complicated case because you have to get into the issue of who is a journalist. outpouring of data american journalism? is that covered by free speech when it is done overseas? interesting questions. i still think of a legal problem

they have is that bradley manning, the allegis source of that information, has been charged with a violation of his oaht oth of protecting that information. that was an alleged criminal act that they can prosecute in a criminal court. is the fact that julian assange received that information -- >> allegedly. >> allegedly received that information. he was not a citizen of the united states and did not have a security clearance. he received the information and put it on the web. is that a crime? i do not believe is. under the current existing laws of the united states, i believe bradley manning allegedly -- whoever in the u.s. military got

that information and leaked it may have violated military loss. id is possible. that will be for a court to decide. the publishers of that information i do not believe committed a crime because they were under no obligation to protect that information. >> the natural question that arises as a result of the last few minutes is is this going to go to the supreme court? is there any way you could lose this in the supreme court? there is no official secret law in this country. will go to court. >> one of the things that has become clear in the last few days is that the justice department does not appear to be ready to appeal to the higher

courts. id least going to drop it looks like. they could change their mind obviously. so, it is possible it could go to the supreme court. it depends on the rulings that will come out but we will see. >> you think that is because of the makeup of the appellate court. >> possibly. there have been a lot of obama appointees to the circuit. obama does not want to test on how they will vote on this. i do not know. but is an interesting issue. i thought for a long time that it might. as of now, i am not sure. >> ok. how do wees riseni, help you if you are in jail? >> send cards.

[laughter] >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> congress is back from the columbus day weekend. the house here on c-span, they will consider a number of veterans benefits bills. on c-span2, the president's jobs plan as revised by senator harry reid. at 4:00, the senate finance committee goes through trade agreements with columbia, south america, and -- defense secretary leon panetta talks about the pentagon budget and what sorts of cuts he is considering. he will be speaking at the international center for scholars live at 1:00 p.m.

eastern on c-span. president joe candidate mitt romney spoke at a town hall meeting in new hampshire yesterday. he took questions for about 50 minutes. [applause] >> our are you doing? hi there. thank you so much. good to meet you. thank you. nice to meet you. wow, you're tall. >> welcome. >> thank you so much. i have been told you have a governor who lives here. hi. how are you?

nice to meet you. nice to see you. how are you today? i am terrific. thanks. hi. how are you? nice to meet you today. good to see you. hi there. how are you doing? i am great. nice to see you. how are you? hi there. hi there. how are you? thank you. nice to be here. good to see you again. how are you? i am fine. how are you tonight? how are you? fromeabouts from meshin

michigan? >> new to the group. >> isn't that something. is that you rson? grand son. how are you guys? hi. >> hi. how are you? >> good thank you. >> i have somebody i want you to meet. something.at

>> thank you for running. [applause] >> i went to first and second grade here. it is a great pleasure for cathy and i to be here tonight to introduce to you the man who we feel and hopefully you will feel after this discussion should be the next president of the united states, mitt romney. [cheers and applause] what this nation needs today is a leader that understands what makes us great as a nation, understands that it is not washington that causes our

nation to be great, but the individuals like you in this room who are willing to go out, take risks, create jobs, and produce prosperity and economic opportunity. mitt romney understands that. we have an individual who understands that our freedoms are precious and we as a nation stand up for the world when it comes to those freedoms, and we must lead that world bank it is a great honor and privilege to introduce to you tonight governor mitt romney. [applause] >> thank you, thank you. wow, it is an honor to be here. thank you so much. do you want to say a word? >> welcome to new hampshire again. quite a few times. we appreciate having you.

[applause] >> good to be back. thank you, sheriff. it is an honor today to be joined by kathy and greg. a fiscal conservative who has done the job for the people of new hampshire time and time again. [applause] senator gregg, gov. gregg, congressman greg, father greg, and an extraordinary man. i appreciate his support and leadership. he has been guiding me around the state today. he will take one or two questions as well. i thought i would talk a bit about family for a moment and some values that we have in my family and then get a chance to hear from you and answer questions that you have. i was mentioning that i am looking at buying a van someday.

we were in manchester. we did not have minivan's growing up. we had station wagons. that was before seat belts actually or before they were required at least. we would just piled them in the backseat. my dad had a van. he took my kids, his grandkids, on a trip across the american west for 30 straight days. they drove in that van with their grandparents. he did that five times with different groups of grandkids when they would reach the age of 12 or 13. could you imagine being locked in a van for 30 days? what he was doing -- i understood. i was on this same trip myself as a boy. we went from park to park. between the parks, my mom and

dad would read us from a book. this is a book written in the 1960's. there is a man nodding his head remembering that book. the name of that book was taken from a poem written by a poet here in new hampshire. he wrote a poem in the 1800's that said "bring me commend to match my mountains. bring the men to match my plans. men with empires in their purpose and new eras in their brains." not conquering other nations, but empires of discovery, innovation, building, pioneers. and new eras in their brains. they changed the world. these were people that came to america. come they did. from the very beginning of this

nation, the founders crafted a country that welcomes people with employers in thier prupose and new eras in their brains. they gave us freedoms that were almost unheard of. they give us political freedom. they gave us economic freedom which was the right to choose our course in life. people from all over the world wanted to come here. every pioneer, every freedom seekers wanted to come to america. if you want to know why america has out-competed the nations of europe from which we sprang and the more populous nations of asia, it relates to our freedoms. it relates to the fact that free people came here. free enterprise was opened and promoted here in such a way that to beconomy buegan

stronger. is who we are. what worries me is we have in washington a class of lifelong politicians who do not understand in each case what makes america america. they do not understand the power of freedom. so the attempt through government to try to guide the economy and our lives. government has never been the source of america's greatness. it is free people choosing their own course in life. this president has never spent any time doing what you all do, working in the private sector. so when he came into government and things were not going well, he did what he knew, which was to expand government. how did that work out? not so hot. you have 25 million americans out of work today, out of work or have stopped looking for

work are only getting part-time work. you have home dog is going down. i saw an article today in the n.y. times. it said the median income of americans in the last three years has dropped by 10%. i think it was 9.8% to be exact. 10% decline in the median income of american families. think of that. gasoline prices have gone up. food prices have gone up. this presidency has not worked. the president, when he was a newly elected president, went on the "today" show. he said if he could not turn around the economy in three years, he was looking at it 1- term proposition. we are here tonight to collect. [applause]

this gentleman over here says "with interest." we are here to collect. we have to take it back. occasionally, people ask me why he has done such an ineffective job. your chances of finding a good job with good pay are not as good as your chances of finding waldo in one of those books. why has this presidency failed? old ronald reagan has one of the best lines. he said "is not that liberals are ignorant, but what they know is wrong." i think the president takes his political inspiration from the social democrats of europe who thinks government knows better how to guide and economy and live your life and build your business. they are wrong.

the president is wrong. i believe europe is not working in europe. it is certainly 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 that we enjoy our principles that will keep us strong. not just today but over generations. it has always been the characteristic america's heart to know that the future is brighter for our kids then it is for us. there is no question in my mind. the american people have everything that is necessary to continue to lead the world. we can provide for ourselves, for coming generations, and for a short defense. we cannot do that if we turn our economy and our lives over to our government. i intend to take back our country from our government and make sure that free people and

free enterprise can once again left the american people. american people. [applause] i am convinced that the only people i know who put their hand over their hard during the playing of the national anthem. if we have leaders that know how to lead and have some experience in the private economy and know what it takes to make america the most attractive place for enterprise and investment and job creation, that if we draw that patriotism, we can keep america strong. i hope to be one of those leaders with your help. thanks, you guys. i appreciate your help. [applause] 9 you get to ask the questions that you would like to ask -- now you get to ask the questions that you would like to ask. i am going to go around the

room. you are going to read it. >> will you commit to putting 6 million people on life-saving medication in an effort to end the worldwide aids epidemic? >> i am not going to tell you exactly how to spend money at the federal level, budget but budget item. i am going to take our discretionary accounts and bring them back to the 2008 level. i am going to repeal obamacare so we can stop spending trillions of dollars. [applause] i am going to take that multi- multi-billion dollars medicaid program and give it back to states so they can craft their own programs to care for their own poor. those things will allow us to balance our budget. the other things that we do, the humanitarian efforts, i am going to look at them one by one to make sure they work for america

and we can afford them. i want to be very careful. when you pay for something by borrowing money from places like china, you have to ask yourself is this really the central to be spent? i am going to be very careful with how we spend our money. my property by the way is to care for americans, preserve our freedom, and be able to stand up and defend ourselves around the world. >> [inaudible] >> if they would have known that you were not from here -- [laughter] >> my brother got into a debate with one of his friends the other day. we agreed that more than anything else we need a president right now -- my

brother took your side and said you had the best [inaudible] my brother's friend argued for herman cain who is now having a bit of a surge in the polls. i want to give you a chance -- [laughter] -- private-sector experience better than what herman cain offers. >> herman cain is a terrific guy. give him a good look. i am not going to try to convince you that my private sector experience is better than his. i will tell you what i did. you can make that decision. both herman and i spent our careers in the private sector. i think that is one of the reasons why both of us are doing pretty well in terms of public support because we have not spend our lives entirely in politics. people are saying let's elect someone as president who actually knows something about the economy and jobs and how we

compete internationally. i finish my education experts and went to work for a consulting firm. i did not know what a consulting firm was out of college. after i got my master's degree, i understood what consulting work was. we would go to ford motor company or cvs and we would go in and provide advice to them on how to make it more successful. i did that for about 10 years. at some point, i became the head of that enterprise. it now has 25 offices around the world. i learned how you compete around the world in various industries. then one of my clients said why don't you go out and put your money where your mouth is? i started a business from ground zero. that business 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 about 15 years. in my party, we celebrate success. we do not attack success. we celebrate it. it was successful. [applause] after i did that, i got asked by the people of utah if i would go out there and take the reins of the olympics because they were in trouble. i spent my life in the private- sector. then i got asked to come back to run to the governor of massachusetts. ito private sector experience and applied it in government. that worked. i was able to find ways to use my skills in a public sector setting. if i was herman, i wish i could say i have that, too. you do not want to learn that as 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. thank you. my take on second amendment rights. i believe in the second amendment. i'd like the constitution. i will preserve and protect a right of an individual to bear arms whether for hunting or personal protection or any other legal purpose. >> big corporations are turning bigger profits than ever. there are the protests on wall street. the top earners compared to the 99%. do you have any idea on how to close that wealth gap? >> i worry about the top 1%. i am not worried about them. they are doing just fine.

all want america to be the best place in the world to be middle class. i understand how those people feel. with a median income down 10%. unemployment is over 9%. this is worse than even during the great depression. the people in this country are set. and stand middle americans -- i'm understand middle americans are wondering how can this be. the answer is to make america the best place in the world for all those companies, all of those people with the empire

spirit and purpose to invest and grow here, not to go elsewhere. putting walls around the country, that will not work. money goes over walls. people will go wherever they think is best. we have to make this the best place to build factories, start businesses, to educate our kids, and to live. i have put together a plan. it has 59 steps. to get the economy right, we will have to fundamentally change the relationship between. we have to crack down on some that don't follow the rules. one of them is china. i have seven major topics i would go after. one of them is trade. it is a good thing for us to sell we make to other people.

china cheats and they have been cheating for years. on day one, through executive order i will label sign that as a currency manipulator allowing us to put tariffs on chinese goods coming into our country and killing our jobs. [applause] >> why do consider the marriage between a man and a man for a woman and a woman less valuable than a man and woman? >> this is for the purpose of raising kids.

>> my question is about that reduction. the polls suggest that the american people favor a combination of increased taxes and a reduction in spending. you do not like -- want to increase taxes. why do not support this? >> this goes back to the field of government. a few of you in this room remember john f. kennedy. he was in your political memory. when john f. kennedy was president, government all all levels consumed 27% of the total u.s. economy. today, it consumes 37% of the

economy. there are those who say let us raise taxes a little bit more. i've seen that in california. the income tax in california is at 10.5%. they are still not able to balance the budget. government will spend what ever you give them and then some. in some cases, to start businesses, open shops, hire people, or by stuff. in which case, they put people

to work. the government has another stimulus program. this will create any jobs. let's let the american people keep what they have and let the government live within its means. that is my view. thank you. >> what is your view on abortion? >> that is a question i did not expect from you but i am happy i got it. i am pro-life and -- this is a tender and sensitive issue and could people come out on both sides of this issue so i respect people that have different opinions on this issue. what i would like to see happen is that the states should have the authority. that is the way it was before.

i am certainly pro-life. thank you. >> thank you for being here. i wanted to follow-up on a question that was posed earlier about finding aids programs. the american foreign aid budget is about a half of a percent of the national budget. i and stand in need and i can respect the decision for fiscal conservatism but one thing i'm concerned about is a candidate that is going to extend this sense of values that we want to bring the throughout the world to helping others. i would like to know if your administration would be committed to continuing to two that -- to keep that. if we can get people throughout the world, 6 million people on anti retro viral drugs.

and if we will keep the tradition that was laid forth by the bush administration in terms of funding. >> i will not commit to his funding level at that level because i have not evaluated it in the context of the entire budget. at a time when we are borrowing money to pay for things. the idea that we borrow more money for ourselves and our generation knowing that you will be paying for. i am very reluctant to borrow more money to do wonderful things. look at china. how many trillions of dollars does it take for china to say

they will stack up? let's work with those were lending money, like china, let's work with them. let's find a way to deal with these extremely important human- rights issues and issues that relate to the saving of human lives. how much we will spend or borrow, that something i will work on as we put our budget together. >> i have been pressed with your experience. one of your weaker areas is foreign-policy. how would you conduct your foreign policy. -- foreign-policy? >> i had the fun of being on the citadel which is a military

college. i laid out some policies that relate to my foreign-policy perspective. let me offer what they are. in some respects, this is reminiscent of a book i read long ago who was the secretary of state under truman. he and trim and defined a new foreign-policy. instead of being isolationists and say that we will stay home, they said that we will be involved in the world because when we were not, that thing happened. human-rights, free trade, human rights. that has to be something party. we will be so strong that no one

ever wants to test us. i want our military to be so strong that no one ever tests it. i will preserve a very strong military. been involved and the policeman of the world. help avoid conflict by it dry people towards our values, towards human rights, free trade, a democracy. in order to keep your nation strong, you must be able to link

arms with your allies. i will not turn my back on america's allies. >> what steps can we take to protect the economy? >> they are related. i believe that we should have to exacting standards on those that pollute our air and water and we have an environment protection agency which protects the air and water. sometimes they take this and turn it into an agency that stops the development of our economy. when the epa says that they will regulate how much carbon dioxide is emitted, i will say that is

beyond the scope of the environmental agency. i will encourage the development of energy resources. we have extraordinary amounts of natural gas, new technology allows us to get natural gas out of the earth and natural gas is far less polluting than coal and oil. these are natural gas resources and ultimately our nuclear resources can become energy independent. i will get us of a foreign energy. thank you. >> i have a follow-up question on the gay marriage question. i was raised by two women. for you to say that child raising as for a man and woman, i was wondering how that would

be different. i was raised by two women. they were not married. >> there are many people did raise by one parent a through divorce, death, or its parent having a child at of what like. -- out of wedlock. the ideal society is we have two people working together. as a society, we will call marriage what it has been called for 6000 years or longer, a relationship between one man and one woman. you want support marriage, what about -- >> you won't support marriage, what about civil unions? >> i support such things as hospital visitation rights and similar benefits of that nature.

>> you are willing to preserve 0.5% of the funding. >> there is a financial transaction pact. you talked about raising 99% of our taxes. we appreciate that. the financial transaction tax is a very small tax on international currency exchange so this will go to the banks and corporations and they don't affect the middle class. this could actually pay to put every single person that has hiv in the world retro viral

treatments. there are solutions to funding things like global health and ways that as americans we can place our values of democracy and human rights around the world. we would appreciate it if you look into that and some other commitments. >> what is your take on the tar sands pipeline? >> if we have well that we can get through a pipeline, absolutely did it in the u.s.. -- get it in the u.s.

we just had a new oil find in north dakota. let's develop our own oil resources. we should create jobs for americans. the president has this green jobs initiative. how many have we seen? remember, the jobs that we lose through traditional energy will exceed those that we get through green jobs. let's not pretend that wind and solar alone will get us secure. we have to have carbon-based and nuclear. let's create jobs here and able to become energy secure. thank you. >> what are your plans for iraq?

>> iraq is pretty straight forward. we are bringing our troop strength down and this is probably one of the failures of the obama administration that they have not put in place an agreement with the government to determine how many troops will remain. we should have enough troops there to support of the iraqi military to hold on to the gains they have accomplished. they are now managing their own efforts in iraq. they need the support of our troops. that is roughly 20,000 of our troops? we don't have a status of forces agreement. that means that it is conceivable that our troops could be subject to criminal prosecution if they are to carry out some kind of military action while they're serving. 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 and provide the resources which the iraqi military needs. we will draw our troops down to roughly 20,000. then iraq will be in a position to defend itself. >> [inaudible] >> i have answered that question. next.

>> 47% of people don't need federal taxes. helping these people vote on spending money when it is not their money? -- how can these people vote on spending money. >> i would think that every american would like to feel that they are contributing to the defense of their country. i don't have an answer because i don't want to raise taxes on people that are not raising taxes. 47% is a big number. that is a big number. that is why some have talked about going to the fair tax which is a tax on consumption. there are problems with the way people have constructed that because very high income people and up seeing a very high reduction in taxes. you look for a way to say, let's

everyone contribute. i will look very carefully. i think every american deserves the privilege of helping our troops and defending liberty. how would that be done, i will give it some thought. i think the people who have been hurt most by the obama economy are the middle income americans. people at below and received some help and benefits. people in the middle, a great majority, are having a hard time. what i would do to help middle income americans is to say for anyone making $200,000 a year and less, you pay no taxes on interest, dividends, capital gains or your savings. middle americans can save for college, retirement, and whatever they want.

>> most of these questions we see on the 6:00 news. i have a couple left. i want to know what you think about term limits, line item veto, and if you win, will the white house [inaudible] >> wouldn't it be wonderful that we had people to go to washington for some time and then go home and get a real job again? i would love to see term limits in washington for senators and congressmen. i want it long enough so they can understand how the government works and how to work the system but i would like to see term limits.

line item veto, absolutely. it is hard to get a line item provision that passes the muster of the supreme court. we had it for awhile and then the supreme court said, what you are doing is unconstitutional. you cannot exercise the line item veto. i had it in massachusetts and i feed of some 800 pieces of legislation. i will work to find a way within the structure of the supreme court decision get this back for the white house so we can stop the expensive -- excessive spending. i am sure my neighbors would not like the traffic.

>> i think you should have a red sox had on the podium of the house and senate. [laughter] [applause] >> these days i am talking to some patriots. >> you cannot settle problems by throwing money at them. >> there you go. [applause] >> that is a good reason. i will take one more question. >> for the past two years, we have not had an increase. will you stop that? >> i will make sure that social

security is saved. anyone who is currently retired or near retirement does not have to worry about social security. nothing will attack social security. this is solvent for our retirees and those near retirement. for those in their 20, 30's, and 40's, we have to make sure the program is still there for them. my answer is not to raise taxes. this lowers the rate of benefit growth for high-income recipients and it raises the retirement age down the road. i will preserve and protect social security and make sure that we honor the promises made to our seniors. it is warm in here. i apologize keeping you in a

room for over one degrees. -- in a room that is over 100 degrees. i look forward to seeing you many more times. thank you. [applause] >> i wanted to make you aware that if we cut the funding to h

i v, we risk a pandemic increase.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> will you sign article two, please? >> i would be happy to. >> just one baseball, guys.

>> here you go. >> that was yours, that was yours, that was yours there. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> there is more coming out. there will be the bloomberg, "washington post" debate. you can follow that live. the u.s. house is about to meet momentarily. the time set aside for short speeches. members for work on a number of deals -- builds on veterans' benefits. then there is a discussion on the revision of the epa's rules on mercury emissions.

also, debate began on trade agreements with columbia, south korea, and panama. the south korean president address a joint meeting with congress on wednesday. the senate will vote on sanctions against countries that manipulate the currency like china. part of that is moving forward with the president's jobs bill. now, the house on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. october 11, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable

martha roby to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 25011, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes each. but in no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, for five minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, madam speaker. i ask americans their priority

and they'll tell you, jobs. there are 14 million americans out of work. there are 9.3 million more americans working part-time because they can't find full-time employment. there are millions more americans whose income is stagnated because of the persistent unemployment which dragged down economic growth. in fact, median household income has fallen 9.8% since the recession first began in 2007. more troubling, although the overall economy's been growing again, household incomes continue to fall. since december of 2007, american households have lost more than $5,400 per average household. there are several factors leading to this decline. one of the most significant in order to find work many millions of unemployed americans are forced to accept lower pay. with millions of americans still desperately searching for jobs, businesses can afford to lower wages, with millions of american families sliffing

below the poverty line and wondering where the next mortgage payment or meal will come from. prospective workers can't afford not to take the pay cut. it clearly must pass the american jobs act. this is a plan that reduces business taxes to encourage private sector hiring and increases infrastructure investment to repair and rebuild america creating jobs, and it cuts taxes for every working american. while the worst recession continue continues to drive down the income, we can increase the take-home pay with the american jobs act putting more money in the pockets of average american families. increasing american paychecks and creating jobs, that ought to be our priority. but republicans in congress have a different priority, cutting. last congress republicans big marketing blitz wasn't about creating jobs, it was cutting. last congress, democrats passed business taxes to spur job creation, to create construction jobs, and back stopping faltering state and

local education funding to save teaching jobs. and we saw results. the great recession resulted in eight million jobs lost, but thanks to our efforts like the recovery act and hire act, we created 2.6 million jobs. a good start but not enough. but what were the republicans doing last year? they were trumpeting their ucut program. perhaps if the democrats named the efforts uhire program, republicans would have noticed. republicans have made clear that cugget remains their top priority. their bill introduced this year, h.r. 1, wasn't about jobs. it was all about cuts. in fact, the economists predicted it would cost 200,000 jobs. surely their second bill was about jobs. no, h.r. 2 tried to repeal important health reforms so that people with pre-existing conditions wouldn't be protected. so that parents wouldn't be

able to keep their kids on insurance, especially in tough times through the age of 26, so that the doughnut hole for our seniors could be closed and they could get a 50% brand name drug discount this year. but republicans voodoo really worked, why isn't our economy better? why are american incomes still dropping? the entire year in place of actual job creation legislation, the republicans have focused on ever-increasing cuts. since the beginning of the year, the economy has faltered. their single-minded focus on attacking public sector employees has paid off. we have lost 535,000 public jobs all across america. it's time to invest in america again. let's support the america jobs bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, madam

speaker. madam speaker, the united states government has facilitated smuggling automatic weapons into mexico. weapons that were purchased by straw buyers in the united states with the oversight of the a.t.f. approximately 2,000 weapons were knowingly september to our neighbors in mexico by our government. most of them are still unaccounted for. but we do understand that those weapons probably have been used illegally in mexico to kill mexican nationals. how many? no one knows. two of those automatic weapons have turned up at the murder scene in arizona of border patrol agent, brian terry. and one weapon apparently was used to gun down u.s. agent sapata in mexico. now the mexican government has taken to the airwaves complaining of the u.s. smuggling operation. mexican officials want answers and even want u.s. government officials responsible to be extradited to mexico for trial.

no wonder, madam speaker, let me be clear. these weapons are not bb guns or .22 rifles. they are semiautomatic weapons and also includes sniper rifles. sniper rifles are used to assassinate specific targets. the a.t.f. and the justice department have stonewalled the release of information regarding this operation called fast and furious. and the public's not getting much data on this idiotic idea. why would the u.s. government send automatic weapons to the drug cartels in mexico? mexico is at war with the drug cartels. the drug cartels are the enemy of the mexican people not to mention they are the enemy of the united states. this gun running issue is nonsense. now the justice department is supposed to investigate this operation which includes investigating the a.t.f. and the justice department. the attorney general who is head of the justice department

at first said he didn't know anything about this operation until recently. now it seems evidence shows he was given a memo last year about the hole idea. did he not read the memo? granted the attorney general has experienced not reading important documents like the arizona immigration law. you remember, madam speaker, the attorney general publicly criticized the arizona bill and then he testified before the judiciary committee to a question i asked him that he hadn't even read that bill. anyway, if he didn't know about the smuggling operation, he should have. he's in charge. and if he did know about it, an approved it, he should be held accountable for this nonsense. i'm not sure what the attorney general's claim of defense will be this week. reminds me of my days on the bench as a judge in texas when a defendant in a homicide case would say, first, i wasn't there. and then he would say, well, if i was there, it wasn't me. and if it was me, i acted in

self-defense. in other words, don't hold me accountable. so just what is the justice department's defense to all this? we shall see. but the idea that the justice department should investigate the justice department and the a.t.f. is absurd. the justice department has no credibility on this matter and whatever their investigation shows, the american public cannot trust its trustworthiness. having the justice department investigate fast and furious, the a.t.f., and the justice department is like having al capone investigate bootlegging. the president should appoint a session counsel to investigate this operation -- special counsel to investigate this operation of government gun running to mexico. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for five minutes.

mr. defazio: well, at last it's been a long year. the house this week is finally getting around to considering legislation to create jobs. i mean you got to admit, their objective of delivering on a government the dream of grover norquist so call that you can drown it in a bathtub has kind of a depressive effect on investment and the economy. cutting investment, education, lost jobs, hasn't created jobs. cutting investment in infrastructure, 28% unemployment, construction, l.i. trades, small business that is provide the work and equipment all private sector jobs, not too good.

so their pew suit of these -- pursuit of these goals so far this year has had a bit of depressive and negative effect on the economy. but to congrat late the republican leaders finally they have turned to creating jobs this week. three trade agreements. now, these are kind of musty, dusty trade agreements. they were negotiated by the bush administration. unfortunately they have been adopted by the obama administration. nothing ever changes down at the trade representative's office. doesn't matter who is in charge. ronald reagan, bill clinton, george bush, barack obama, people in the trade office push the same policy. so these are job creating trade agreements. congratulations. we are building upon the success of the past. nafta, great success. the w.t.o., great success. job creation, phenomenal job creation. the only problem is the jobs are being created in foreign

nations because of our failed trade policies in this country. we are hemorrhaging jobs. this is the record over a decade. we lost 15 factories a day. 15. some of them were kind of small, local small business, but republicans love to talk about their advocacy for small business. 15 a day. for 10 years. that's our current trade policy. so, what else? well, that figures out to about 1,370 manufacturing jobs a day over the last decade. so learning from past experience we are now going to do exactly the same thing yet again. we are going to adopt, i can predict the future, the republicans will all vote for it, and a substantial number of my colleagues, a minority of democrats, but they'll sign on,

too, to this false promise of job creation under the guise of free trade. according to the economic policy institute, for starters the korea free trade agreement will cost us 160,000 jobs. bye-bye to the last vest inges of the auto part industry. 35% korean content requirement, they can source all their stuff from china or maybe better, north korea, where they can use slave labor and it will be cheap. we'll ask our workers to compete with that? there goes another industry. now, colombia and panama. well, e. purks i. estimates they are kind of dinky economies. they only lose about 55,000 jobs. so for starters we are creating a quarter of a million jobs overseas with more failed trade policies. colombia, they kill labor organizers but they promised they won't do that anymore. panama, huge haven for drug

smugglers, terrorist money, and others. they launder money but they promised the obama administration, even though bush said they could keep doing it, they promised the obama administration they won't do it. they will no longer allow people to secret ill-gotten gains in panama unless it's in their national interest. that's a little bit of a loophole. so these are a great deal for the american people. how's that? i don't know because the special trade representative's office, unfortunately, rather meekly and quietly, the president and the republican leadership say these are a good deal for the american people because, yes, they will benefit wall street and a few multinational corporations. these just goss another quarter after million americans their jobs. it's time to put an end to this craziness. we can hope that it won't happen. that we can stop these trade agreements here this week on the floor. and look for a new trade policy, one that creates and brings jobs home to the united states of america. i thought that's who we were here to represent.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: thank you, madam speaker. there are many times that we come to the floor to address our current flight, and -- plight, and i do wish to say to the american people that we are well aware of the importance of jobs and the focus of creating those jobs. and i offer to you that most economists will say that job creation is a public and private partnership. i rise today, however, as, again, those who seek the republican nomination for the presidency of the united states that will come before the american people this evening, they will present a number of

issues. this time it will be jobs. i hope they will present themselves in a manner that acknowledges that anyone who has a privilege of serving serves on behalf of the american people and the american people come from all backgrounds and i respect that. in particular i'm going to ask the governor of the state of texas in his good vices and his beliefs in the equality of all to reflect upon a decision that is about to be made in the state of texas and that is a decision in 2011 to issue a confed rate license plate, -- confederate, those who opted to leave the union. now, i am someone who applauds and appreciates the sacrifice that any person in uniform

makes. i will not step away from the idea that much blood was shed in the civil war. but what i am offering to say is that in 2011 it would be a disgrace, it would be outrageous to uplift the confederacy on a license plate in the state of texas. let me tell you why. first of all, one of the most heinous tragedies of this great country's history was the holding of slaves. more importantly, millions of slaves, destined for the united states and the americas, died in that dark passage before they even got to this soil. the brutality of slavery is without doubt and without question. the state of texas remained enslaved, messager those who were in -- meaning those who were in that state for two years longer than any other place in the united states

because we did not get notice for two years after president lincoln declared the emancipation proclamation. who wants to ignite and remind you of that kind of devastating history? and so as the texas motor vehicle department makes a decision, i beg of their members to recognize that this is not a united action. it is a dividing action because the action will be a state-issued plate that would affirm the brutality against african-americans, against slaves, against the ancestors who paid with their life to rebuild this country or to build this country. there was no debt ever paid for slavery. 400 years for the dividing of families, of the brutality against children, the hanging, even as it continued into jim crow. as we look to the honoring of the monument of dr. martin luther king this coming week, i

beg of my fellow texans on this board to recognize that this is a national issue. it is a national issue of prominence because to issue a confederate license plate is to go and do what many states have undone, the removing of the symbols of a confederacy, the taking away the rebel name for university of texas. why? because they believe in moving america forward and focusing on such things as bringing our troops home and hong them, focusing -- honoring them, focusing on creating jobs. and how heinous it would be to have the state of texas, one of the largest states in the nation, for its young men who are on the frontlines of african-american heritage in iraq and afghanistan and for them to come home and have to look at a confederate license plate. this is not free speech. this is not freedom of speech because anyone who desires to promote that particular life and legacy, they are so allowed

to do so. they may print anything in the privacy of their home, wear anything, put anything on their front yard, their back yard, but not a state-issued plate with texas dollars embedded inside of that particular symbol. america is greater than that. i love this country. all of us are patriots because we love this nation no matter what side of the aisle. and i remind you, madam speaker, that a republican state senator, i want to thank him, has indicated we should not have this kind of symbol in texas. i beg you, mr. perry, tonight to speak to your higher angels and talk about bringing us together. do not issue a confederate license plate in the state of texas. for god sake and god bless america.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00 p.m. today. live coverage here on c-span. and once again the house coming back at 2:00. at the same time the u.s. senate will be returning as they come back from the columbus day weekend. the senate will take up a procedural vote on president obama's jobs plan. it's part of the debate on the china currency bill. follow the senate on c-span 2. and coming up also this afternoon at 1:00 eastern at 4:00 eastern, rather, the senate finances committee will

meet to consider the free trade agreements with panama, colombia and south korea and you can follow that live on c-span3 at 4:00 eastern. and here on c-span, leon panetta will be speaking about the budget priorities for the defense department going forward. we'll have that live at 1:00 eastern. and to take us up to 1:00 this afternoon, part of this morning's "washington journal." a look at how different racial and ethnic groups have been faring in the current economic situation. host: talking about the working class. who makes up the working class? guest: well, you know, it's a huge group of cross-racial and dem greatic lines.

african-americans, asians, latinos. we looked at these groups and how they're faring in the recession and what their economic acktudes are. host: what do they do for a living? guest: home health aide. a family that owns a beauty shop. they look at the hopes and dreams of their own economic opportunities across generations and how they see themselves advancing towards the american dream and really what their view of the american dream is. host: so what is their view of the american dream? guest: well, i think you know everyone across the country wants the same thing. it varies from status symbol from city to city. everyone wants a stable job at a time when unemployment levels are so high. they want a better life for their children. they want their kids to go to college. that's the common theme for years. unfortunately, given the recession, some of those things are out of reach for more and

more people. host: on average how much does the working class make a year? guest: the average median has slid back because of the recession. it's in sort of the $40,000 to $30,000 range. so one of the interesting things we found although census figures shows that the median income has slid across racial and ethnic lines, blacks and latinos are much more optimistic about their opportunities even though the data shows that they, too, has been hurt. host: the front page of "the new york times" said the median income shrank further after the recession. a soapering new report. guest: historically since the 19 -- let's say late $1960's they have been pushing more in the middle class than whites and so have latinos. even though the median income

has slid in the last few years they have made advancements over the last century, let's say in terms of civil rights, obviously, but also economically. host: how do they compare their lives? guest: well, that's a really fascinating thing. there was a harvard economist in 2006 who did this report before the recession talking about how people view that and the thing that he found was that they really view their economic opportunity based on those people around them. and their own family. so one of the women i talked to for this story, a 22-year-old african-american living in spartanburg, south carolina, named tierrea, she views her economic opportunities through the lens of her family her grandmother picked cotton in the field at one point, worked in factories for several years, as had her mother. her father's in jail. the fact she has an associates degree and has a career as a home health aide, she feels her

economic opportunities are bert. host: you have a chart here that says nontwhites are more optimistic than nonwhites. you said, compared to your parents when they were your age, would you say you have more opportunity to get ahead, about the same amount, less opportunity? white people that you surveyed said 36% said they had more opportunity. 36% said they had less opportunity. blacks, 69% said they had more opportunity. latinos, 62%. asian americans, 67%. so is it because white working class parents were better off than now their current -- their current children have become parents and are in the working class? guest: yeah, that's exactly right. because blacks and latinos have been pushing in the middle class, whites have been falling out of the middle class. and for a lot of people that's concerning. one of the characters in the

piece is a guy named dave miller who is a firefighter in detroit and works two jobs. and his family for years worked in factories but he doesn't think he will be able to seasoned his children to college or give him the economic -- them the economic opportunities. host: is the working class the same as the middle class? guest: it's slightly different. the jobs that they occupy are a little bit different and also, you know, they're striving for the middle class. there's a slightly lower economic run whereas the middle class can encompass a broader socioeconomic sphere. host: how hard will the next generation reach the middle class dream? guest: i think it's hard. college degrees are so expensive now. as you know the cost of students have more and more debt when they go to college. so just that educational

barrier and the financial obligations that it poses presents a problem for a lot of people and that's something that came up throughout the reporting we did for the story, this idea you have to send your kids to college, but even a state school has a $20,000 a year price tag which for many of these families is impossible. host: you also did a survey. who did you do the survey with? how did you go about it? guest: the survey was done last spring. we talked about what are people's attitude toward their economic ack tuft. there was the heartland monitor poll. we asked how optimistic people are about their own ability to reach the american dream, how optimistic are they about their children's opportunities and whites and blacks overwhelmingly thought that their children would have more opportunity. host: let's get to phone calls here. robert is joining us in romeoville, illinois. good morning, david. caller: i would like to say i am optimistic about the

american dream. however,seems that politics as usual in washington and the way the media basically portrays the vote and it seems like they basically tell people -- they get people to vote for them and it's not going anywhere and as far as schooling goes, the reason why the schools are bad is because the federal government is involved and it is like a corporation. you have cell phones. at&t, verizon, cingular and all that. the reason why they succeed is because they compete with each other and compete and compete and compeent the best company wins and they're always have new products and everything else like that. now that the federal government stepped in, it's -- everyone has a fair share and is going nowhere. host: robert, can i ask you, to you what does the american dream mean? caller: i used to think it

meant -- i'm only 21. i grew up and my father was middle class and as i got older it started to become more apparent that he's the working poor and he started -- we started living paycheck to paycheck. i'm still optimistic about it as long as the politics could change and the american dream to me right now is just being able to gelt a decent job and not get handouts. host: so what about owning a house, is that part of it? caller: i think it's part of it. i don't think an average person could get it. host: what did you hear from that caller? guest: i think it's fascinating what you say about the struggle to get a job and that really speaks to what came up in our reporting. you know, before the american

dream was for this firefighter in michigan owning a second home, lake on a cottage. and now for a lot of people the american dream is just having a steady paycheck. even if they're having to accept wages that are less than the ones they would have 20 years ago in factories and also understanding that, you know, their jobs may be more volatile as plants move overseas, as factories change, as the economy shifts. host: we go to new haven, connecticut, next. caller: thanks, gretta, for taking my call. host: good morning, chris. caller: i can remember being 22 and telling my parents i'd never get social security and i'm 61 now and boy, am i grateful i was wrong. but i never expected to have family, to have a house. i knew because i didn't have a college degree that i wasn't going to be financially successful. but what i concentrated on is

loving, learning and i guess i took ben franklin as a model. he didn't have a very good education but he contributed both intellectually and politically and i i worked for the radio station as a public affairs director, i helped found public access tv here. i ran a senior citizen newspaper. i did all these things without having a college degree, without expecting to get much money out of it. but i see the contribution i made, i see people i know doing television programs now at our local tv station and it heartens me to know they're volunteering their time to make things better. host: so, chris, what is the key? what's the key to your success then?

caller: the key to success is volunteering, loving, learning and being satisfied with a lesser amount of money for a greater amount of satisfaction. host: got it nancy cook. guest: i think chris raises an interesting point about the government helping them. he talks about having social security and how that's been a huge help to them. one thing our polling found is minorities were much more willing to look at the government as a safety net and not necessarily a bad one whereas whites were much more likely to say having to depend on the government for things like medicare or social security or welfare of any kind was not something they wanted to do. host: what did your poll say about education when you talked to these people at least? did they feel like the education they got helped or didn't help? help them achieve some sort of working class status or middle class? guest: some of the people we talked to felt like the education they had was ok but

there was a general sense that everyone needed much more education, that you needed an associates degree or a bachelor's degree or master's degree. in previous generations having a high school degree would have a well-paying job. host: 9.1 % unemployment rate. 14 million people are unemployed right now. 103,000 jobs were added in september. and of those added 48 ,000 came from professional business services, health add about 44,000, construction 26,000 and the information services industry about 34,000. go ahead. guest: that was one of the things of my reporting in south carolina was the young african-american i spoke to, because she was a home health care aide which is not a well paid profession, it makes about $10.50, because she latched onto health care, she viewed

that as a really positive thing. host: and her ultimate goal was to make how much an hour? guest: $15 or $16 an hour which corporation to about $30,000 to $31,000 a year. host: she felt if she made it that far she would have what? guest: she felt if she made it that far that was a real step up for her. host: she could live on that? guest: she could live on that and be comfortable. her first job out of high school was wal-mart making $8.50 an hor. the idea of $15, $16 an hour was a good thing. host: help me with your name, miami, florida. armando, right? let me move on. let's go to lynchburg, virginia. eddie is a republican. good morning, eddie. caller: good morning. i want to say the following -- i believe the american dream

was forgotten many, many years ago. the new generation, they want everything for free. they have a lousy system of education. even though whatever the lady is saying the education, the u.s. is very good and that the teachers -- the teachers are very low qualified. that's one of the reasons why most of the kids, they come out of high school, they don't even know what the capital of kansas is they don't know where the country of mexico is. they don't have any culture besides what is locally. host: eddie, what do you think are the ramifications of that? caller: well, i think they should do a better selection of teachers. i think the main thing is the parents should participate more into the life of the kids instead of just trying to make money. host: nancy cook, education. guest: yeah, i think in terms of economic data, what we've

seen is the jobs that are being crealted right now are really in, you know, the math, science, engineering sectors. host: and they require a college degree? guest: right. certainly the u.s. has to step up across the board in terms of those areas of education. middle school, high school and college level, there needs to be a lot more people that are, you know, studying engineering, studying technology and those sort of things. those are jobs that rope and they can't find people qualified enough so that's a huge disconnect. host: tony has this to tweet. how can you expect to work for four or five years and have what it took decades -- others decades to acquire? no one wants to wait. guest: i don't think we found that in our reporting, a since of impatience. i think we found was economic volatility in the market. so it wasn't that people didn't want to pay their dues or job hopped because they wanted to

or got bored or restless, people were moving around in places like south carolina because their plant was closed or laid off or unable to find work. so that was the sense we found per hour reporting. host: did the working class have more than one job? guest: many of them do. the firefighter in detroit had a small business on the side doing house construction. that was rlt sense to make ends meet you didn't have to have one job, you had to have multiple jobs and had to be flexible and willing to work on the weekends, a night, anytime you could get a shift. host: armando, independent caller, you're on the air. caller: you're absolutely right. for example, i'm a handyman. i was born and raised here in miami.

as far as wages are concerned, all you have to do is look at a simple index. a coca-cola was worth five cents. the minimum wage right now, you can't live off of a $6.35 which comes out to $10,000 a year. so you're forced into having two jobs. it's not whether you want to or not or it's economically beneficial. you're forced into having two jobs just to get by. host: nancy cook. guest: yeah, i think that's absolutely true and that's a really great point and glad you brought up. wages have not absolutely kept up win flakes. you're right. people just to make ends meet and we are not even talking about buying a house or being able to send your kids to college, we're talking about putting food on the sfable and paying your rent, it does require people to work multiple jobs. host: memphis, tennessee,

frank, you're on the air with nancy cook. caller: where did you get the studies up? they have not went up on no wages. you have to work two, three jobs. you can't have a life because you're working two, three jobs every day. so i don't find nothing good about why people say, you need to work two or three jobs to make a living. they need to gun on the wages so we can have a life. we work every day all day long. you don't have time to live a life. that's what i'd like to say guest: that's a great point. i'm not advocating people to work two or three jobs, just to be clear. what we found in interviewing our subjects for the story, they had to do that just to make ends meet. you're right, it does affect family life. one of the people we profiled in the story, dave miller from detroit, working two jobs cuts into his family time. his time to spend with his wife

and kids. you're right, tim pacts people to have a family life and personal life. host: did you a poll about happiness. would you say you are happy, pretty happy, not too happy? nonwhites 25 said they're happy -- 25% said they're happy 57% said pretty happy. 19% not too happy. white, 30% happy, 59% pretty happy and 11% said not too happy. guest: it really impacts people's ability to raise children, take care of themselves, exercise, cook. you do all these things that are good four, that improve your life and it's hard. host: augusta, georgia, toni, good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say we're a young family. i'm hispanic. my mom came here as a legal immigrant. my parents were a shining example as to being good

stewards with your money. my dad was a truck drimplete my mom worked as a hospital. just as an administrative person. we grew up middle class. but we always had everything we needed. we didn't ever always have what we wanted but they instilled that in us. i went to college. yes, college is expensive but you take on student loans, you do things. it's scary at first but you pay it off in the long term and it's not that big of a pavement it's doable. you just have to fight for it. host: nancy cook. guest: that's one thing that we try to bring up in the piece. the latina woman that we profiled also felt the same way. she aced her lsat. she was planning to go to law school. she got a job at a law firm in downtown chicago. the story is not what is possible versus what is not possible economically. the story is about how these people view their own

opportunities and what we found is that sense really just varies so much across racial and ethnic lines. host: danny is next, an independent in louisiana. caller: yes, good morning. i think the american dream is when you aspire and when you can aspire to do better than your parents did. that american dream ended when the boat was cast -- vote was cast to go into trickled down economics. i remember tip o'neill, speaker of the house, when it passed through a coalition of democrat -- blue dog democrats. they weren't called blue dogs then. basically they had producing states. and then they had supply-side economics. we went to keynesian economics. at the time prayingan stepped in office we had the number one

standard living in the world. we had the best education system. etc., etc. through supply-side economics -- i looked up the definition of supply-side economics in the definition and always said wealthy corporations. so here we are 30 years later after supply-side economics began and it reached its logical conclusion which it did during the great depression. now, we have sustained this 30 years because laws were changed with regard to communications. through the communications act. and the rich and accomplished started their own network and deceived the most gullable among us and sustained this. the people who are most gullable and support this riff -- rich man's project here, you wake up and stop listening to the rich man's point of view. guest: yeah, i think the caller

raises a great point. the wealthy, the top 1% of earners in the country have fared very well in the recession. they managed to corner a huge chunk of wealth. i think what the caller is sort of implying and talking about is the fight that's going on in washington right now over the budget and taxes and thinking about how we reduce our devils and how respend our money. it's really the fight that's happening right now. you know, what sort of society do we want to have and what sort of tax system we want to have and who that will favor. unfortunately we won't know how that will shake out for a while now but that's certainly a fight that's happening now. host: one has this tweet. six banks own 60% of g.d.p. how does the concentration of wealth affect the works class? guest: well, it just makes it that much harder to access the wealth. you know, people that have money are going to keep that money and keep investing, keep making more money. you know, wealthy companies are

going to plow more money into elections. so it just means it makes it harder for people to climb up the ladder. host: democratic caller. stone mountain, georgia. caller: hi. my name is chris. i think the most important perk of this whole situation is parents having the know how and the resources to get their kids into college. i'm 39 years old now i actually grew up in marx wisconsin, and when i gradgraduated from high school i felt i was at the epitome of what i should have been doing. i felt complacent with the jobs i had been having over the years and i never made over $11 or $12 an hour. 20 years ago when i was working for target i brought home $215 pushing carts in the lot. i had various management jobs

over the years. now i'm making not even close to $11 an hour. that's no more than $300 and some a week. when people come complacent and never have the income that a lot of people have that's doing well, a lot of people have a tendency to become complacent. with the no child left behind program, i just want to make a comment on that. people who live in different socioeconomic areas and when you get a group of people that's in a poor area and they try to get people to different schools, i found that process to be a little frustrating because you have people of different attitudes where i don't want those kids coming over to our schools messing up our schools. host: ok, chris, we'll leave it there. first part of his comments there. guest: yeah, he because talking about how to get your kids into college. what we found during the reporting is you're right, you can take out ploons.

you can do these sorts of things. but it's very hard if your parents didn't go to college and you don't have through supportive schools towns how to access loan, to understand what the process is. even though many of these people view college the gateway to that and to earn enough money to support yourself, it can be very difficult if you're the first person in your family to do that. host: larry, republican in massachusetts. caller: hi. larry from camden, massachusetts. the american dream is alive and well. my parents never lived the way my wife andry living. i went to school nights, weekends. we now have our own business in mental health. we're doing very well. we're a black couple. we came from very little means.

my parents never had money. nor did my wifmente i can say if you can't make it here as a poor person, you can't make it anywhere. we've been to africa and egypt. if you can't make it here, times may be tough, education is the key. i wish my mother and father could see how we're living now. they would be very proud. guest: well, it sounds like you take great trips, caller. also, what you're saying really fits in what we did with our poll. you're an african-american come and your economic opportunities are much better than your parents were. you feel like you have a house, you live a comfortable lifestyle, you're traveling all over the world and that sense of optimism about the economic opportunities in the u.s. is what our poll stayed, too, african-americans increasingly feel more and more optimistic.

and statistically african-americans were pushing their way into the middle class. much more so than whites are right now. host: let's talk to mike next. he's a democrat in roseburg, oregon. good morning, mifpblgte caller: good morning. good morning, ladies. thank god for c-span. i myself am an illustrator -- are you there? hello? host: yeah. caller: i'm an instraightor. i'm 6 0. i own my own home. where i made my money was in europe pretty much. i spent 14 years painting

europe. host: how did you make your money in europe? caller: well, what i'm doing now is i'm still painting. and i found a couple of walls where i could hang some paintings. believe me, ladies, through my life it's always been up and down. i am on an upswing at this moment. it's a long story how i got there. the point what is going on in the states and what is going on in wall street right now i think is really something that should be focused on by the news but it's not, of course, we have an industry that is not a free press. murdoch is deep in this industry as well as the corporate theocracy that exists. host: here is a tweet from larry duncan. how did you chose people to

interview? from such a limited pool it seems dangerous to draw conclusions. guest: we have a much broader sampling of data to base the story on but how we found people was largely through social service agencies, through calling around to different cities. we wanted to, you know, get a slice of life from depirch areas of the country and different racial and ethnic groups, as i said. and so that's how we went about it. host: they also looked at home other thanship, whites and nonwhites. host: paula, democratic caller from tulsa, oklahoma you're on with nancy cook. go ahead. caller: i'm a recent college graduate.

i got my masters degree in 2010 and here in tulsa there are 100 applicants for every minimum wage job. and that leaves people like me working two and three jobs. i'm just curious how society expects parents to be more active in their kids' education when parents have to work two or three jobs to pay the bills and keep food on the able? -- table? host: ken from mansfield in ohio. caller: i have an opportunity to see the job market from the depression on through now. when i grew up i had an opportunity to -- for my family to work a lot of hours but it was on a farm. we worked together. it was such a wonderful fellowship that we had together, and then i was always

interested in seeing what was happening around me and i noticed that whoever was in power of the -- had oversight over the economic market was -- they skewed it, of course, to their advantage. like you had mentioned here. then the unions came in the 1930's. after the big corporations had been busted through teddy roosevelt's trust busting. and then there was a window-like that went into the 1950's and 1960's and so forth that when things were somewhat equalized, as i remember, and people could go out and get a job the next day if they wanted

to because there was an opportunity. that was skewed, too, because here we are the powerhouse after world war ii. we made things for the rest of the world. we must remember everything is always influx and never is equal and we go according and i think we have opportunity today. host: all right, ken, we'll leave it there. guest: the caller makes a great point, everything is influx right now. everyone's view of the american dream is shifting. whether that's wanting to buy a home or making $30,000 or wanting to earn a second home or sending their kids to college, it's changing. that's what we tried to look at in the piece. host: we go to slidell, louisiana, democratic caller. caller: yes, my comment is, it's not as easy for students

to get to college or get through college these days. the funding that is available to students, we talked about the stafford loans and the pell grants. those aren't enough. that is not enough for a student to get through college. if the parents are not working, the parents are low income. now, my income was very low but i had to really sacrifice to pay those extra fees. students have to get jobs which brings their grades down if they're working to pay these bills. and when they graduate six months later many of them have not gotten a job yet. it's hard to find a job. but yet that loan notice comes saying it's time to start paying. host: all right. nancy cook. guest: the cost of higher education has just ballooned over the last, you know, several decades and it's hard

when so much economic opportunity is linked to having a bachelor's degree but the cost of higher education is so high. host: what do the parents that you surveyed, people you talked to what do they say about the prospect of affording college for their kids and how they plan to go about it? guest: well, you know, a lot of parents felt they wouldn't necessarily be able to afford it or they thought they would have to take out a huge loan or in the case of a 22-year-old woman i talked to in south carolina, she sort of thought, already 22 working, she thought if she went back to college it was something she would have to do on her hearn. her parents wouldn't be there to do it. she would have to save up money and take the loan herself. host: the people you talked to, did their parents send them to college? guest: that was one of the things about the piece. so many people in the family had not gone to college. in the person in south carolina, she has a huge

extended family. there is one aunt out of 40 or 50 cousins and multiple generations that went to college. host: does that define the working class? guest: i think it does. people who have high school degrees, who don't have college degrees and who have largely held manufacturing jobs, service jobs over the years and, you know, those service jobs are continuing to grow as the economy bounces back but as we know those service jobs don't necessarily pay huge wages and there's not a ton of stability in them. host: mike is joining us from st. paul, minnesota, democrat. caller: i am a longtime union worker here and i'm probably -- benefits and everything making $40 an hour and i just -- i look at these people out there setting their sights on $12 to $15. they have to raise their level of expectation. for the younger people, they got to understand that success

is not easy. they're being told by some of our politicians that success is not fair. we have to change the combination. guest: yeah, i don't think the people we interviewed, they are not lazy. they certainly would love a 40-hour -- $40 an hour job. it's that more of those kind of jobs are rarer and rarer. in south carolina there is a b.m.w. factory. those wages people were telling me start about $18 an hour and those are very, very coveted jobs in the area. everyone wants to work there but they can't hire everyone. i think jobs like yours, unionized, paying really well. i assume you probably have a pension and health care benefits. those are increasingly rare for the works class. host: hell me with your name. caller: hi. i'm chan sama limbings. thank you for taking my call.