the u.s. economy. earlier this week, congress honored japanese american world war veterans with a congressional gold medal ceremony at the capital. we will hear remarks from house speaker john boehner and senate leaders harry reid and mitch mcconnell. this is about 50 minutes. [applause] >> i want to welcome all of you and my colleagues, senator reid and senator mcconnell, secretary shinseki, chairman hall from the house, and our friends from california.

i also want to welcome our good friends and our honored military guest it. your family and friends, and everyone who worked to make today's ceremony possible. aloha and welcome. [applause] in a public law was signed by president obama last year and directed the creation of a congressional gold medal to be presented to the japanese american war heroes who made our victory possible. it states "the united states remain forever indebted to the bravery, valor, and dedication

to the country that these men faced while fighting a two- front battle of discrimination at home and fascism abroad. their commitment, and a sacrifice, demonstrates a commendable sense of patriotism and honor. it is my privilege to welcome all of the recipients on behalf of every american, and we are humbled by your presence with us today. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please stand for the presentation of the colors, the singing of our national anthem, and the retiring of the colors.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

[national anthem plays] ♪

♪

>> ladies and gentlemen, please remain standing as the chaplain of the united states senate gives the invocation. >> let us pray. internal -- eternal god, thank you for those in every age and generation, who by their courage and sacrifice, won freedom for human kind. overdues we give an honor to those who served in the u.s. army's 100th infantry

battalion, the 402nd regimental combat team and the military intelligence service, endorse our gratitude with your divine approval. we praisae you, lord, for the thousands of japanese-american veterans who sacrificed for liberty when their friends and families were experiencing discrimination at home. may their exemplary service inspire us to cultivate in our lives their courage in danger, their steadfastness in trial, their perseverance in

difficulty, their loyalty when loyalty is costly, thier love which nothing can change, and their joy which nothing can take away. amen. >> please be seated. ladies and gentlemen, the representative from the 29th district of california, the honorable adam schiff. [applause] >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. today, we award the congressional gold medal to the regiments and veterans of the military intelligence service

for their dedication to our country. these remarkable men left a segregated nation to fight and defend america with no guarantee that their own freedom would be defended in return. there are no words more eloquent or more revealing of what they endured and the legacy they left behind than their own words, words like these. on february 19, 1942, president roosevelt signed an executive order. that was the blackest moment of my life. being treated as an enemy alien. veteran of the mis. i wanted to prove that i was a loyal american and wanted to fight for my country. veteran of the 442nd. here i was a corporal in the u.s. army uniform, not allowed to visit my family in the

internment camp. 442nd. i felt we had to fight and go forward. i was scared going up to the lines and thought to myself, "well, this is it." after we were hit, i became so engaged that despite the mortars and machine gun fire, i was no longer scared. i was too busy. in combat, you learn to obey orders and push forward. medic, 442nd. this prisoner was brought in to us on a stretcher after he was wounded. after i inquired of his treatment, he said, "you are a traitor." trader, i said? you can see i am an american soldier fighting for my country. you are a loyal japanese soldier fighting for your country.

if you were to cut our veins, the same blood would flow. do not call me a traitor. veteran, mis. i told the others to watch out for the incoming fire. when one of my buddies stood up and got shot, i crawled over and picked him up and he died in my arms. i just lost it then, picked up my gun, and charged the hill of. veteran of the 442nd, medal of honor recipient. there have been 35 promoted to the rank of general and admiral since the vietnam, a remarkable record compared to world war ii when the highest rank was that of major for a japanese american. america recognizes that it is made mistakes, corrected them, and moved on to become a stronger country. we are proud to defend the freedoms that this country

represents. veteran of the 442nd. these heroes did defend our freedoms and ideals. their heroism lies in how they fought for america, the equality, justice, opportunity, even when those values were denied them at home. they paved the way for millions of other americans to proudly wear the uniform today. members of the 442nd, 100, and mis, it is an honor to be in the same room with you. thank-you. god bless you. congratulations. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, a representative from texas, the honorable ralph hall. [applause]

>> mr. chairman, for all those addressed, honored guests, it is a provision for me to take part in this ceremony honoring the 442nd regimental combat team and military intelligence servants of the united states army. it is an honor to have you here and be here with you. i flew for the navy and pacific. as other nations faced war, sacrifices were great. so many men and women as well as their families. brave soldiers of the regiment had in moscow, "go for broke," and that is -- brave soldiers of the regimen had a motto -- "go for broke" -- and that is exactly what they did.

the 442nd regiment was the most decorated of any unit of its size in the history of the united states army. quite an honor. the congressional gold medal that we present is fitting and long overdue, a tribute to their service, bravery, and dedication. one of those men in the 442nd received a medal of honor for his bravery and heroism. i serve with him in congress for many years. i am fortunate to count him as a friend. he serves our country in the united states senate. we know there can be no peace in the world without strength, and there is no freedom that is free. you have to work for it. in would not be possible

unless the winning -willing sacf those young men and women who served us. i was in japan off and on almost quarterly for seven or eight years. they needed technology. the work honorable to deal with. they improved on all of the technology that we would give them before they would leave the room almost because they a r that tight people and they are now that friends of this country. today, as we honor these men of the 442nd regiment, who answered the call, and whose service and sacrifice helped america prevail, our nation owes them a debt of gratitude. i am honored to be here today as

we present them collectively the congressional gold medal. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the junior guinness did senator from the state of california, the honorable barbara boxer. [applause] >> that is great. i can see you all. good morning, everyone. it was such a great privilege for me to carry the legislation that awards the heroes a congressional gold medal. i want to thank congressman schiff for putting that confidence in me for getting it through the senate. thank you. granting this metal is a long overdue honor which recognizes and expresses our appreciation for your dedicated service during world war ii.

you fought world war ii on two fronts. as president harry truman said, "you fought not only the enemy -- you fought prejudice, and you won." you've been listed even as many of your family members and friends were sent to internment camps. you serve your country. despite being subjected to hurtful hopper slurs and deep suspicion. your bravery lead your units to become known as "go for broke." because of your willingness to risk everything for america. you made a decision, as my dear friend has said, is that "america was worth fighting for and worth dying for."

while we can never repay the debt that we owe you, we can recognize your valor and your patriotism, and that is what we are doing here today. so thank you. thank you for everything, and thank you for making sure we preserve the incredible story of the regiment's for future generations. we honor your service. may god bless you, may god bless our veterans, are men and women in uniform, and may god bless america. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the united states senator from the state of arizona, the honorable john mccain. [applause] >> let me thank this audience for joining us today to honor the heroes of the 100th infantry

battalion, the 442nd regiment, and the military intelligence service who served and sacrificed during world war ii. know that my colleagues are moved up -- i know that my colleagues are as moved as i am today by this ceremony. today, at long last, we award the congressional gold medal to a group of americans who are as deserving of it as any i have ever known. i believe it to my friends and colleagues today to recount the many distinctions that have earned these brave americans the enduring gratitude of our country. suffice it to say, they did everything that was ever asked of them and more. what is most remarkable is that they did so despite the fact that our nation, at times, fell

short of its responsibilities to them and americans like them. it is not every day that the leaders and members of congress have an opportunity to put aside our usual differences over the. business of the day to join together with bipartisan unanimity, to pay tribute to follow citizens who have served a just cause greater than their own self interests. this is a special day. the people's representatives and our great democracy will always have plenty about which to disagree, but when -- but when it comes to honoring those among us who have given everything to protect our nation, americans have always and will always stand as one just as we do today. to the men of the 100th infantry battalion, 442nd regimental combat team, and the military

intelligence service, thank you, thank you for your service. god bless you. and congratulations on an honor that is richly deserved. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, united states army chorus will now saying the 442nd song -- will now sing the 442nd song. ♪ orus sings] ♪

[applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the democratic leader of the united states house of representatives, the honorable nancy pelosi. [applause] good morning. and a great morning it is when we gather today on this very special day for america, a day when the congressional gold medal is bestowed on american heroes. congratulations to each and everyone of you and to your families. in accepting this gold medal, you bring luster to this award and you bring honor to this congress. as a member of congress, i am honored to join the house and

senate leadership, our distinguished speaker, leader reid, leader mcconnell and also the others. it is natural that we would have californians in the lead on the resolution, senator boxer and congressman schiff. and totally, wonderfully, proudly appropriate that senator mccain and our house member, veteran of world war ii, ralph hall, are co-sponsors of this legislation. you are bringing us all together. it's an honor to join them to pay tribute to the 100th infantry battalion, the 442nd regimental combat team and the military intelligence service. as a representative of san francisco, it is a point of pride to me that so many of today's awardees have san francisco ties. the japanese-american community enriches our city and is a

source of strength to us. as others have said, the motto of the 442nd was "go for broke." today's awardees were willing to go for broke in the fight against tyranny abroad and, in doing so, fight discrimination here at home. again, as others have mentioned, despite the injustices of the internment of japanese-americans, today's awardees rose above being embittered. indeed, many felt empowered to prove their loyalty and love of our country. i want to consider some stories of heroism from my own district, but before i do, i want to acknowledge that general shinseki, now secretary shinseki is with us. we're honored by your presence and your patriotism to our country. [applause] and our former colleague, we called him chairman when he was here, and now secretary,

secretary on more than one occasion, secretary norm mineta who led us in the repatriation fight in the congress and he is here. [applause] now from my own district, yoshio wada helped liberate dachau death camps. when we have the great ceremony in the rotunda of the capitol, celebrating the liberation of the camps after world war ii, at the end of world war ii and our japanese-american patriots are in that march. imagine, imagine all of that coming together. imagine frank masuoka who helped to negotiate the peaceful surrender of 600 japanese soldiers to american troops. imagine that. and several in my district were part of the effort that rescued the lost battalion, an effort which had been tried and failed

twice before. in that single campaign, the 442nd suffered over 800 casualties. the i company, which broke through the last german roadblock, went in with 185 men and only eight walked out uninjured. simply put, the 100th infantry battalion, the 442nd regimental combat team and the military intelligence service saved american lives. they faced deadly combat in italy, france and germany, they intercepted radio transmissions, translated enemy documents and interrogated prisoners of war. again, it's another source of pride to me that many of these accomplishments are being memorialized in the presidio of san francisco. thank you senator boxer, for your involvement in that. building 640, as it's known, is right across from crissy field.

it was the first headquarters of the mis. senator inouye was there the day we dedicated, we ground broke for it. we're grateful for the national japanese-american historical society for their efforts to create a museum in san francisco to honor those who served in the mis. consider that an invitation to visit us. every member of congress could tell stories of heroism from their own districts. indeed, we have stories of heroism within the congress itself. senator daniel inouye's valor and service in the 442nd earned him the medal of honor and today, the congressional gold medal. [applause] our colleague in the house, congressman mike honda, will accept the gold medal today on behalf of his father byron. byron volunteered to serve in the military intelligence unit even though his wife and

children were behind barbed- wire fences of the internment camp. we gather today knowing that this group is not complete, that many congressional gold medals today will be awarded posthumously. we remember those for whom today came too late, and we particularly honor those who never came home. in battle, today's awardees proved that they were great fighters. in their service, they proved they were great patriots. your cause was not just the end of fascism, but promoted the end of discrimination, the american ideal of equality, which is our heritage and our hope. today, as i say, you bring luster to this gold medal. you bring honor to this congress. you have always brought honor to our country. thank you and congratulations. god bless you and god bless america. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, the honorable mitch mcconnell. [applause] >> of all the stories of valor that have come down to us from the second world war, the story of the 100th battalion and the 442nd regimental combat team is among the most powerful and hardest to explain. how did these men, who had first been excluded from service by their own country, take up arms so valiantly in her defense? how did men whose families had

been rounded up and confined by their own government go on to become the most decorated military units in u.s. history? president clinton put it well, i think, when he said of these men, "that rarely, as a nation been more well-served by a people it had so ill-treated." among them were our friend and colleague senator inouye. then there is the military intelligence service. drawing heavily from the 442nd regimental combat team, its members were in many ways america's secret weapons in the war against japan. general macarthur could later say that never in military

history did any army, know so much about the enemy prior to an engagement. through their efforts, the haste and itened its end. through their tireless efforts after the war, they laid the groundwork for the close relationship that the u.s. and japan have enjoyed against all odds ever since. if you ask those who remain, they will tell you like any good soldier, they were not looking for glory. taken together, the men of the 442nd and the mis through their bravery and service have secured a permanent place of the highest distinction in our history. and in our hearts as americans. they volunteered to win a war,

and they defeated prejudice was the work at it. what a story. men, thank you. congress honors you today with this medal, but believe me, the honor is all hours. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the majority leader of the united states senate, the honorable harry reid. [applause] >> in 1945, a few weeks before germany's surrender to allied forces, the u.s. army's 92nd infantry division headquarters wrote a letter to its unit commanders. that letter, from the headquarters of the famous all- african american "buffalo

soldiers," was titled "facts concerning 442 infantry." this is what the buffalo soldiers wrote about the nisei, an all-volunteer unit of japanese americans who had already proven their great valor in battle in the european theatre -- "they are as thoroughly loyal as german americans, italian americans, or any other american of foreign ancestry. a category, of course, into which all of us fall." and of course that was true. not only were the men of the 442nd just as loyal as the most distinguished american soldiers of every other race or national background, they were also just as sharp of eye, true of aim and stout of heart. and, in the end, the blood they shed defending american freedom on the battlefields of europe, while fighting for the only nation they had ever called home, was just as red. although they were exempt from the draft, they volunteered to fight for our flag. many of them joined despite having family living in american internment camps along with 110,000 other people of

japanese ancestry who were removed from their homes. and 650 of them willingly gave their lives to protect the freedom for which america stands, although they were denied that freedom at home. nearly 4,000 more of these first-generation americans were wounded or missing in combat. my friend, senator daniel inouye, who is one of the finest men i know, fought famously with the 442nd and was grievously wounded in battle. bravery like senator inouye's is the reason the 442nd regimental combat team, including the 100th infantry battalion, is one of the most highly decorated units in u.s. military history. its soldiers earned thousands of purple hearts, more than 500 silver stars, 21 medals of honor and nine presidential unit

citations. and alongside the military intelligence service, which was also honored with a presidential unit citation for indispensible translation and interrogation services, the 442nd helped win the war. it is for that brave commitment that we award them the congressional gold medal, the highest honor congress can bestow. some say it was a desire to prove that their loyalty and dedication to this country was beyond reproach that made the men of the 442nd such formidable fighters against fascism. but really they just shared the same patriotism that blazed in the hearts of other young, american soldiers. we owe them much gratitude for their service and pay tribute to their sacrifice. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the

speaker of the united states house of representatives, the honorable john boehner. [applause] >> since our founding, americans have believed that our liberties, our constitution, our way of life, even our flag are things worth fighting and dying for. we have also believed these ideas are not limited to one race or people, that the struggle for these ideas can unite all our people. but for japanese-americans, the days and months after pearl harbor must have seemed like a giant and painful step backward. removed from their homes and placed in camps, these loyal americans endured years of discomfort and disgrace. but out of this story of prejudice comes another story that reaffirms america's worth

and exceptionalism. today we honor the thousands of japanese-americans who served in the u.s. army's 100th infantry battalion, the 442nd regimental combat team, and the military intelligence service, most of whom were recruited during their internment. their baptism of fire began in the mountains of italy when the 100th battalion was attached to the fifth army. the overlooked italian campaign was brutal; it cost the allies 320,000 casualties between 1943 and 1945. in italy, the 100th fought the rain and bitter cold; they fought sickness; they fought trench foot, all while fighting the germans, uphill. in november of 1943 the 100th joined the attack on the germans' "winter line."

the nisei soldiers quickly established a reputation as some of the best combat soldiers on the front. this reputation was sealed early on by men like allan ohata and mikio hasemoto. on november 29, 1943, they were attacked by 40 germans. things turned out very badly for those germans -- 38 were killed; one was wounded; one was captured. private hasemoto gave his life later that day, but that two- man army earned medals of honor for their extraordinary heroism. their bravery and selfless dedication were reflected by all nisei fighters, wherever they engaged the enemy. they fought hard for this nation and they held fast to their motto -- "go for broke."

together the 100th and 442nd became the most highly decorated outfit in u.s. army history. they received more than 9,000 purple hearts. they earned thousands of bronze and silvers stars. these units, plus the nisei of the military intelligence service, distinguished themselves in every operation in nearly every theater of world war ii. on behalf of my colleagues and the american people, thank you for fighting to make this the greatest nation on earth; and god bless you all for defending our flag. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain sitting for the unveiling

of the gold medal by members of the congress and representative of each unit. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, and

member of the 442nd regimental combat team, the senior senator of the state of hawaii and the president pro tem of the united states senate, the honorable daniel inouye. [applause] >> mr. speaker, members of the congress of the united states, ladies and gentlemen, i thank you all for this extraordinary recognition nearly 70 years ago, pearl

harbor, a naval base in hawaii, was bombed by the japanese, and the japanese, whether citizens or immigrants, were declared by the government of this country as being enemy agents. and as such, unfit to put on the uniform of this land. but we did not sit by and do nothing about it. we petition the government to give us an opportunity to demonstrate our love of country and our love of patriotism which was granted to us at the end of the war. general macarthur said as a result of the service of the mis, the war ended by at least a year sooner. then the two units were declared

to be the most decorated unit in the history of the united states. this has been a long journey. but a glorious one. we wish to thank all of you, all americans, for this recognition. it is heartwarming, and i am certain that i speak for all assembled here, but more importantly i am certain those who are resting in cemeteries are pleased with this date. , bless america. god bless. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, please remain standing as the chaplain of the house of representatives gives the benediction. >> made the hands and hearts of this nation be raised in prayer and praise. these are wrote members of the united states army who served our nation and the hope of freedom for all the world. our nation was defending itself from the attack of dangerous foes, yet these veterans chose to serve on what they themselves and their families were under domestic attack because of their ancestral roots.

though never able to be remembered without considerable embarrassment, made the people of this nation now rise to celebrate to honor the units this day that bore no small rejection by their fellow americans yet proved to be the most highly decorated unit in the history of the united states army. made the breath of god uphold their heroic and noble story, made it carried to other generations and even other nations in message to inspire citizens everywhere to serve the my because of public service while always seeking equal justice. made those who made the ultimate sacrifice -- may those who made the ultimate sacrifice, those who earned medals of honor, and

those who suffered personally the pain of rejection in those dark days of our world and our nation be rewarded success and find peace. bless all women and men in military service no matter their racial, cultural, or religious heritage and their families. god, bless america. and grant us peace, both in the present and with you forever. amen. >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain at your seat for the departure of the official party followed by the departure of our honored veterans.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] ♪ ♪

>> still to come on c-span, legislation to help to keep the u.s. postal service financially secure. later, a house floor debate on legislation reaffirming "in god we trust." then, remarks from john boehner on jobs and the u.s. economy. tonight, a live debate between herman cain and newt gingrich. that will take place in houston tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you can also watch on c-span.org or listen on c-span radio. >> you cannot understand where his ideas came from on less you

knew what was happening around him and that so many people take offense from the line that people take offense from religion. you would not understand what his revolt was about. >> this weekend, married gabriel looks at the life of karl marx and a revolution that changed the world bank and also, the military and political career of his father, the former is really prime minister. on sunday, three hours on "in depth." book tv every weekend on c- span2. find the complete schedule online at booktv.org. >> i think reading the books are helpful.

it is like seeing a bad movie. is good to see what was done wrong. >> a cleopatra author has advice for riders. g1 a pulitzer prize and spent time as a senior editor -- she won a pulitzer prize and spent time as a senior editor. >> there should be enormous hope for what is yet to be done. >> more sunday night on c-span's "q & a." >> next, we will hear from senators joe lieberman, susan collins, and scott brown. the measure involves keeping --

>> -- and secure its financial health into the future. we are introducing this legislation today and planned to market it out before the government will affairs committee meeting next wednesday. five years ago, senator collins and harper left congress in the adoption of postal reform legislation. they have been the real leaders in this area who have devoted a lot of work trying to rescue the postal service. this year, senator brown and i have joined them in proposing this legislation which really is an effort to rescue the u.s. postal service, which needs a fundamental restructuring of the way it meets its obligations to its customers, including individual and business mailers and to its employees.

if our legislation is adopted, we are confident that the u.s. postal service, and iconic institution founded in the 18th century along with the country itself, will survive and flourish through the 21st century and beyond. to many people still rely on the postal service for us to sit back and allow its collapse. despite a 22% drop in mail volume since 2007 -- think about that as a business. 22% drop in mail volume in the last four years. the postal service will still deliver 167 billion pieces of mail this year. it is the second-largest private sector employer in our country. i say that because it is a

public private institution separate from the government, second only to wal-mart, and has a 557,000 full-time career employees. it also has over 32,000 post offices, which means that the postal service has more domestic retail outlets than walmart, starbucks, and macdonald combined. the financial health of the postal service has been deteriorating for years, but the rapid changeover in everybody's lives to electronic communication, combined with the recent economic downturn in our country, have swept our postal service into a financial debt spiral. in this fiscal year alone, 2011, the postal service in july told our committee that it faced a total loss, a deficit this

year, of $8 billion. by september, it revised its estimate to $10 billion. the postmaster general has told our committee that unless he gets new authority from congress, the postal service will run out of money to deliver the mail by sometime next summer. that is why we are introducing this comprehensive legislation to put a number of cost saving measures in place which my colleagues will discuss in some detail in a moment. i want to say that we know that many of these proposals are going to be controversial because they include reducing the number of postal facilities in our country, both post offices and distribution centers, reducing the number of people who work for the post office and altering some of the delivery schedules that the post

office of follows now. but without taking controversial steps like these, the postal service simply is not going to make it, and that would be terrible. we are pursuing broad changes in this legislation rather than working around the edges to put the ovapostal service back on road to recovery. if we worked around the edges, it would not solve the problem. the postmaster general has been clear. he needs the ability to cut $20 billion from the postal service said's annual budget. and we are giving him and his employees what we believe are the tools to achieve that significant amount of savings. the bottom line is we must act quickly to prevent a postal

service collapse and all of the awful effects it would have on our economy and the quality of life for the people of this country. and we have to act boldly to secure its future. as i mentioned a few moments ago, the u.s. postal service was founded in the 18th century. of the more you look at it, the more you appreciate that the post office is not an 18th- century relic. it is a great 21st century national asset bank but times have changed. they are changing rapidly. so too must the u.s. postal service if it is to survive. i want to again thank senator collins and harper for their leadership in this area and say how pleased we are that in the traditional role of committee, we achieved a bipartisan

agreement. we are going to be battered probably from all sides when we go forward with this. but this really is a national problem. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> believe me, i am used to it. but this is a national problem, and we are not going to solve it by being rigid about a particular remedy that each one of us has, and that is the spirit that has propelled our discussions at this point. i want to thank my colleagues for what they have done and all the members of our staffs who are suffering from sleep deprivation and other ailments associated with asking to do a lot of work in a short amount of time. senator collins. >> thank you, chairman. let me say how much i appreciate

the hard work of senator lieberman, harper, and brown that have brought us here today. it is taken a great deal of hard work, but we have developed a bipartisan agreement that would put the postal service back on a sound financial footing. this bipartisan will restructure, modernize, and survive. i would like to emphasize the point that senator lieberman made. we are not crying wolf here. the postal service literally will not survive on less comprehensive legislative administrative reforms are undertaken. the postal service will not be able to meet its payroll one

year from now. that is why we worked so hard to come together to develop a bipartisan bill in contrast to the approach taken by the house. i also want to make the point that the postal service is absolutely vital to our economy. jobs are at stake. the postal service is the linchpin of a $1.10 trillion mailing industry that employs approximately 8.7 million americans in fields as diverse as direct mail, printing, paper manufacturing, catalog companies, the list goes on and on. in fact, yesterday i met with a group that included nonprofit

organizations, a paper manufacturing companies, and ebay which tells you something about the reach of the postal service. in our bill, we are asking the postal service, directing the postal service, to make some painful choices to reduce its costs. it is not simply to slash services and raise prices. that approach would only produce a death spiral by driving away more customers and thus causing the postal service to lose even more volume. no one will be happy with all of the provisions in our bill, least of all but four of us. that is almost always the case when painful decisions are required. let me just outline a few of the

provisions that are in our bill. first, under our bill, the postal service would receive a repayment of nearly $7 billion from the office of personnel management that is due to overpayments that the postal service has made to the federal employees retirement system. everyone agrees that this is an overpayment, gao, opm, and all of us. with part of that overpayment, we would authorize the postmaster general to initiate a compassionate buyout program. the postmaster general believes that using this buyout program, he could reduce the number of employees by approximately

100,000 workers. second, we would change the amortization schedule that would set up an hour 2006 law to help pave the unfunded liability for retiree health benefits. we would stretch out the amortization schedule so the annual payments would be less and more manageable. we also give the postmaster general an option that he has requested and that is to negotiate with the postal unions to try to reach an agreement within the next two years on an alternative that would be less expensive and that would greatly lower the unfunded

liability. third, we would prohibit the implementation of a reduction to five-day delivery for the next two years. at that point, five-day delivery could only be implemented if the postal regulatory commission verifies a gao assessment that the postal service has implemented cost-cutting reforms and savings are still not sufficient to restore the postal service to financial viability. what we want to do is to ensure that eliminating saturday service is truly the last resource, not the first option. this is so important to our

newspapers, rural areas which lack access to broadband, and two seniors that receive prescription medicines through the mail. we are also concerned that an immediate move to eliminate saturday delivery would cause more businesses to leave the analysis and. once they are gone, they're not coming back and the postal service to residents would suffer yet another blow. those are just some of the provisions that are in our bill. i do want to touch on just one more before turning over the podium to my colleague, senator carper because this is what i have been pushing for for a long time. we need a complete overhaul of

the federal and postal employees workers' compensation program. just to show you how out of control this program is, the postal service currently has more than 200,000 employees who are 70 or older who are receiving higher payments and tax-free payments on workers' compensation than they would on -- under this standard postal retirement program. how is obvious that that is not the purpose of workers comp [. this is supposed to be a safety net program that helps injured workers by providing them with income while they are out of work and gives them rehabilitation services so that they can return to work. one postal employee is actually

99 years old. he is still receiving workers comp. he is not ever going to return to work. either on a lower benefit so it is more comparable to what a retired worker would receive or switch to the retirement program. i am pleased that we were able to reach agreement. those reforms that we are proposing will save the postal service in total, when you look at all of the reforms, hundreds of millions of dollars per year in workmen's comp costs alone for the postal service is now spending more than $1 billion per year on workers comp payments. much of it is appropriate and needed but much of it is not. those are just some of the

reforms that are in our bill and there are many others because this is a very comprehensive bill. our goal is a thriving postal service that is financially stable and able to serve america in the 21st century. thank you. . >> senator carper is the chairman of a relevant subcommittee and senator brown is the ranking member. >> welcome one and all. it has been a joy to work with centre college for the last six years on postal issues. -- with senator collins for the last six years on postal issues. it is good to be here with scott brown who is the ranking republican on the subcommittee. i want to ask three or four

points. can we govern? can we still govern this country? can the senate and house tackle big problems? this is a problem we can fix and we believe it is a brute -- blueprint week laid out today for a roadmap to that solution. the consequences of doing nothing we look at from a job perspective. we are trying to save jobs in this country and preserve jobs. there are 7 million jobs in the postal service. a half-million jobs are said to people who work for the postal service and another 7 million flow from the work that the postal service does i want to draw on how we got into this mess and draw a parallel with the situation with the postal service and the auto industry which almost went down about three years ago.

to build on what senator collins and lieberman said, how do we help the postal service get out of this mess? the answer from the home depot ad campaign is you can do it and we can help. the postal service can do it. the postmaster general and his team have a good idea how to get out of this situation. our responsibility is to help. one way we help the most is by choosing not to be a 535-member board directors of the postal service. they have their own board of governors and they don't need our board of directors and part of what we need to do is to get out of the way and let them do what they need to do while invoking the golden rule -- treat other people the way they want to be treated, customer's car residential customers, business customers, it includes

employees, and it includes tax payers. how did we get into this? not long ago, my mom and dad had passed away and my sister was in our home looking at all kinds of stuff. we found a treasure trove of letters they send back and forth during world war two. they rose to like every other day to each other from heather and beyond and save those -- and save those letters. we could not wait for male. sometimes the joe and susan and scott and i go to afghanistan and their troops still gets mail. they also use skyp [e and facebook and twitter and the internet. the way we communicate is so different today.

if we go back to when i was in southeast asia, the u.s. auto industry had an 85% market share. in 2009 when they almost lost them all, their market share was under 50%. the auto industry said we have three such challenges predict = more employees the money, we have more of applies the money, and we have a mismatch between the price structure of the big three and their competition. they said we need to address those three things. they did not ask for a bail out. they asked us for an investment and we made that investment and it has been repaid for the most part with interest. the bulk of service is similar to what the auto industry faced in this country. the postal service has given their market share at more

employees that the really neat. they have more post offices than they really need. they have more processing centers than there really need. they're not asking for a bail out. there are asking for getting back the $7 billion overpayment and we should allow them to do that. there is a 125,000 postal employees who are eligible to retire. that is out of 550 cows on the payroll and want to give the postmaster general and his team the tools to incentivize people to retire. it is much like the auto industry. it could be the ability to offer extra credit time to re-hire. if 100,000 people retire from

the postal service, it saves a billion dollars per year and we are estimating using about 1/4 of the $7 billion for this part of the program. the auto industry worked with the uaw very cooperative lee and we think there's an opportunity for the postal service to work with the union. for employees and future retirees. it is not enough have the postal service cut its way out of this by reducing post offices or reducing mail processing centers. susan came up with the idea of encouraging the postal service to move to curbside service.

there is a lot of money to be saved if we can incentivize that as well. the postal service has to be innovative, entrepreneurial, come up with new ideas. flat rate boxes are a good idea. if it fits we mail it. the postal service as a partnership with fedex and ups. fedex and ups do not want to go to every door every day. they have a partnership as the postal service goes to every door six days per week. the postal service carries the fedex and ups packages for them and it is a good partnership. as we move toward the christmas holiday season, the postal service is in a great position to capitalize on that service and make money. the postal service has an

opportunity as we try to downsize state and local governments. how about putting some of those services and the post office? maybe we can explore virtual mailboxes which we will hear about in the days to come. this is a way to create more business going forward. we need to be able to demonstrate in this country that we can govern again. we need to demonstrate that republicans, democrats, and an occasional independent uncovered here. we can solve this big problem. the situation is dire. we can fix this problem. with the goodwill of a lot of people, we will. the idea is to fix this problem by the end of this year. thank you very much. >> i have a lot of questions so

i will be brief. it is a personal privilege -- there is a reason why the three people behind me and i work together. there's a good lesson there for a rest of the senate to show that we can do things in a truly bipartisan manner. i would ask that others take a lesson from what we have done. we spent hundreds of hours trying to come up with a solution. our staffs have doen yeoman's work. we need to show people we can solve problems. we have a choice. we can fix it or not. we can score a touchdown or set up for a field goal. i want to solve the problem and work together to find that solution. the time for political theater and games is over. we need to do our best to push this through. i am thankful to the chairman for doing it and the susan, you

have done a great job. her guidance throughout the process were truly wonderful. tom, it is an honor to serve with you on our committee and try to get things done. it is pretty simple, folks, fix it or not? i want to fix it. fire away with your questions. >> go right ahead. >> regarding the surplus, you say it could be used for retirement buyouts. >> the postmaster general tells us roughly 1/4 of the $7 billion would likely be used or needed to identify people to retire. the post of us has a line of credit, $15 billion. that line of credit has been fully exhausted pretty postal

service has an obligation to pay workers comp and they are looking for money to be able to do that. they would not need the entire $7 billion. might be as little as $2 million. if 100,000 people take this retirement, we would save $8 billion. >> [inaudible] >> as senator carper said, the likelihood of our discussions with the postmaster general is that he would use $1.7 billion for the buyout program. the buyouts are tapped at 25,000 per employee. that is the highest amount which is comparable to the cap for federal employees' buyout programs. in some cases, it would be less.

the option is also there to get service credits for people who are not quite at the number of years that they need. it would be one year under the civil service retirement system and under the federal employees retirement system. the postmaster general has told us that somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.7 billion of that money would be sufficient for the buyout program. the rest he said he would use to help pay down some of the $15 billion debt to the federal treasury. the postal service is at or near the ceiling for anbar when. -- for borrowing. it could be used for workman's comp and take care of litigants. it has lots of use. paying down debt is the

priority after the buyout. >> let me add one thought -- this for refund from fers retirement fund is not a bailout. it is the result of a legal analysis that everybody agrees with that this was in fact an overpayment by the postal service. it is entitled to receive that money back. in contrast, where the proposal that was being made, frankly by the postal service, that there were also entitled to $55 billion from csrs fund, the other retirement fund for federal employees and we specifically decided that was not justified and there was controversy about it. this is money they owed.

it is not a bailout but it will help them carry out a buyout to reduce the level of their employment. yes? >> you are trying to cross the street and they say it will be a bailout. you said your plan was a more thoughtful bill than what the house passed earlier this year. you said this is not you guys crying wolf but you said much the same thing five years ago. how is this different? >> let me answer your first question first. the house opposition would be based largely on the $55 billion

from they csrs system. as chairman lieberman has mentioned, there was great controversy over whether or not that was an overpayment, that we are too independent -- there were two independent actual studies that said it was an overpayment. the administration says it was not an overpayment. by contrast, the administration agrees that the approximately $7 billion from the first system is an overpayment and the president actually put the return of that money into his project. the house comments were largely directed at the $55 billion at gao, at our request, looked at the $55 billion and agreed with the administration and disagreed with the two independent

actuarial studies. we decided not to put that in our bill. this has changed considerably from earlier discussions. the house is aware of that. my staff went over and had a very constructive meeting yesterday with chairman issa's staff. i and i hope we can work together. we have had one joint meeting already with their house counterparts. they recognize this is a very real problem. as far as what happened in 2006, we clearly did put the postal service and back on a better financial footing for a while. unfortunately, the transition to electronic mail was far more rapid than the postal service

had anticipated. but costs were higher than anticipated. the situation is so much more dire now that was in 2006. the postal service, if nothing happens, will lose $10 billion this year and not be able to make its payroll. that is by next summer. they've maxed out their credit. the situation was very bad in 2006 but it is many times worse now. many other reforms to put in place in 2006 were helpful but they were not sufficient for the crisis we are in which was exacerbated by the recession caused primarily by the migration to electronic mail

the. >> >> is the csrs donation dead? >> i cannot speak for my colleagues. $55 billion is not in our bill. it is not in the house bill. i don't know of anyone who was talking about the $55 billion any more, even the postal service has abandoned their request. >> askedgao --we asked gao to be a reference for us and they agreed with us. they also concluded that it is questionable whether there is a $55 billion overpayment. one of our colleagues like to operate under the 80/20 rule.

we need to find 80 percent we agree on an the other 20% but we don't agree, we will set aside. the reason why i think there is hope that we will not be faced with the same situation again, let me go back to the auto industry. three years ago when we were contemplating that bailout, many people said we should not put $1 in for the auto industry for investments or a cash benefit. they said to let them go down. today, they are impossibility. the makers of the best quality cars, trucks, and vans in the world are hiring people back to work. what happened three or four years ago to the auto industry [inaudible] we are trying to help the postal service do the same thing. i think that as a goal shared by a issa and elisha commons in the

house. -- eli is a cummings in the house. while we may disagree in some cases and how to get where we want to go with the postal service, we agreed that they should be viable and we will figure out how to agree on the particular is, as well. >> there was controversy about a csrs payment being called a bailout we agreed we should not get into that. it was the kind of temporary palliative -- in other words, it would have injected money into the postal service without the service changing fundamentally which it needs to do. it would have concealed their

problems. we are requiring them and encouraging them and enable them with new authority to make the fundamental changes that the postal service. it includes reducing work service -- work force, services, and particularly facilities. the good news is that with the exception of the refund of the $7 billion that everybody agrees the postal service deserves, there is no taxpayer money, no additional taxpayer money being put into this. we think we have set the postal service of a course to cut its losses -- its annual budget by $20 billion and hopefully not reduce service and not accelerate the drop in volume. that is why we are proud of this accomplishment. >> even the money coming back to

the postal service is a rate- payers money. it is the customers and the postal service. there is no way this bill is to bail out -- >> the house is in session next week and it senate is in session. they will return to work on legislation that repeals a 3% federal withholding on contractor payments. a vote is scheduled for 5:00 eastern. next week, a possible work on 2012 spending and a resolution of disapproval offered bykay bailey hutchinson. members return on monday. >> every weekend, the people and events that document the

american story. this weekend, the white house curator of the decorative and fine art rarely seen outside the white house now on display at this this r on inenwick -- at the smithsonian renwick gallery. the goldwater for president committee follows barry goldwater as the five-time senator campaigns in new hampshire in 1964. look for the complete weekend schedule c-span.org @/history. >> to night, a live debate between herman cain and newt gingrich. they have agreed to a lincoln- type of debate at 8:00 tonight. you can also watch c-span.org on or listen on cspan radio.

earlier this week, the house debated a bill read affirming'in god we trust'as the official american motto. the measure passed 396-9. here's a look at the debate. this is 35 -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempe: the gentleman is recognized. mr. forbes: mr. speaker, when our declaration of independence was penned, it was unique in that the writers of that document recognized that the rights tha we have as american citizens didn't come from some committee in this body, some resolution or even from the king, but rather came from god himself. in 1814 during the war of 1812 frances scott key noticed through the battle fires that were going on a unique thing and began to pen what would become our national anthem when he wrote "the star spangled banner" and mentioned "in god we trust" was the motto of our great nation. the 39th congress of the united

states in 1865 during the civil war which threatened to tear this nation apart, authorized "in god we trust" to be placed on certain coins including the dollar, the half dollar and the quarter dollar. the 43rd congress in 1873 authorized "in god we trust" to be placed on coins as the secretary of commerce would so desire and secretary of the treasury. in the 60th congress in 1908 congress mab dated that "in god we trust" be placed on all gold and silver coins. in the 82nd congress of the united states in 1951, the senate chamber had "in god we trust" placed over the entrance door in the senate chambe in 1955 president eisenhower approved lislation requiring the motto to appear on all coins and currency. in the 84th congress in 1956,

congress officially adopted "in god we trust" as the national motto of the united states. anin that congress, the senate said was important for the spiritual and psychological value of the country to have a clear and well-defined national motto. in the 87th congress, this body authorized "in god we trust" to be placed right behind where you're standing, where it so stands today. in the 107th congress, we reaffirmed the pledge of allegiance and once again our national motto. and in t 109th congress, the senate reafimpled the -- reaffirmed the national motto. in the 110th congress in 2007, congress said that the dollar coins that we had to put "in god we trust" on the edge of the coin back to where it belonged in the front or back of the coin. in the 111th congress in 2009, this body authorized "in god we trust" to be in the capitol visitor center and be mandated that it be placed in here. mr. speaker, what brings us to

today? there are a number of public officials who forget what the national motto is whether intentionally or unintentionally. there are those who become confused whether or not it can still be placed on our buildings, whether it can be placed in our school classrooms. almost a year ago, the president, in making a speech across the world, said that our national motto was e pluribus unum. a part of this very structure that we are standing in here now, they did not have the nation motto wherein they inscribed in the stones that our mot was "in god we trust." we have the cause of those omissions, many people confused today when we changed it, what happened to it, can they still display it in rooms? so we believe that today is fitting that we come together as a congress and reaffirm that great national motto do what

the senate did a few years ago and our national motto is "in god we trust" and encourage them to proudly display that motto. mr. speaker, i hope a urge adoption of this measure and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as may conse. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, thgh the american people are concerned about restoring our economy and creating jobs, today we are returning to irrelevant issues that do nothing to promote economic growth to put americans back to work. we've seen this before. in the 107th congress we passed a bill to reaffirm the phrase "one nation under god" in the pledge of allegiance and reaffirm our national motto. we re-enacted into law word for one making "in god we trust" our national motto just to be sure. now, no one threatened it. no one said it was not the

national motto. this resolution today, which has no force of law, simply restates the national motto once again. why have my republican friends returned to an irrelevant agenda? irrelevant because it does nothing. it restates existing law that no one is questioning. why are we debating nonbinding resolutions about the national motto? the american people are demanding action on the president's jobs legislation. they are demandinghat we deal with the budget fairly and effectively. they areemanding fairness for the middle class and for the 99% of meashes who don't write million-dollar checks and hire expensive lobbyists and make huge campaign contributions. and yet here we are back to irrelevant debates, when people run out of ideas, when they have nothing to offer a middle class that is hurting and has run out of patience. what happened to republican pledges that we weren't going to do ese kinds of symbolic

resolutions any more? symbolic because after all it changes nothing. the national motto remains the national motto as much today and tomorrow as yesterday. what happened to republican pledges that we were going to focus on the business of legislating? that was earlier this year. make no mistake about it, some have taken a decided divisive tone when talking about the national motto. some same political adversaries are somehow less godly or less patriotic and views theotto to drive home that point or try to drive home that point. i think that kind of divisiveness defies national unirit which in times like these is important. ratherhan trying to one up each other, we should be working together to try to solve our very real problems. mr. speaker, let's get back to the work we were sent here to do. let's stop playing the kind of social issue games that do nothing to move the nation

forward. the national motto is not in danger. no one here is suggesting that we get rid of it. it appears on our money. it appears in this chamber, above your head. it appears in the capitol visitor center. all over the place. we don't need to go looking for imagined problems to fix. we got enough real ones to worry about. this resolution is a waste of time, a waste of effort, and, again, remember that this country is a country for all people. whether they are religious or not, whether they believe in god or not, whether they believe in one god or not. the first amendment said we should not make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. this is not an establishment of religion but restating this when no one has threatened it, when no one has questioned it, is an exercise to tell people

who may not believe in god you don't really count. you're not really amicans. the establishment clause is there to protect religion from government and governmentrom religion and to parate the two. this resolution is saying we don't want to separate the two. if someone were threatening the national motto then maybe it would be necessary. as is this is simply an exercise in saying we're more religious than the other people, we're me godly than the other people and by the way, let's divert people's attention from other issues like unemployment. we shouldn't go looking for imagined problems to fix when we have enough real ones to worry about. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. forbes: with all due respect, i'd like to respond to my good friend saying this is irrelevant, nothing to offer

the middle class who is hurting when he says this is just a symbolic gesture. mr. speaker, there are those who believe that the declaration of independence is just a symbolic document, just words. there are those who believe that that flag behind you is just symbol and the pledge of allegiance we make to it just wordand there are those who believe "in god we trust" right up there is just words. so many presidents o this united states realize, there are far more than words. they are the very fabric that has built and sustained the greatest nation the world has evernown. and i challenge my good friends who would dare say that that declaration was just a symbol, that pledge of allegiance just a symbol, in god we trust just a symbol, to dare say to president lincoln when he brought in in god we trust and he talked about that and he embraced it during the greatest conflict this country has ever known, the civil war, he was just wasting his time, it was

irrelevant, he wasn't doing anything to that nation who was hurting. or to say to wilson during world war i when this nation was at a very difficult time that it was just irrelevant, it was just words, it did nothing at all, or to say to president roosevelt during world war ii when we didn't know we had the freedoms that in god we trust gives us the opportunity to have and that flag gives us the opportunity we have would embrace this nation, that in god we trust and lead this nation, just words. or john kennedy or dwight eisenhower o ronald reagan or francis scott key, just words. and, mr. speaker, i would just say to my good friend i understand there are a few believe that in god we trust is just words. but i would say today it is far more than words. it is worth defending just as that pledge of allegiance is worth defending and that declaration of independence is

worth defending and i am grateful we will have an opportunity to do just that today and the challenges he say done exist with court suits and public officials who are saying that it' not in god we trust as our national motto but something else, it's worth us standing today and taking 40 minutes to do what so many presidents, so many congresses have done support that to say they are different than the rest of the world and those words will continue to stand behind where you stand and, mr. speaker, i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: nobody said that the national motto in god we trust is just words. nobody said any such thing. this resolution is just words. it's on our currency, on our walls, it's there. it's our national motto.

nothing will change. it was our national motto yesterday, today and tomorrow. this resolution is simply words designed to distract attention from our real problems. there is no challenge to our national motto. there is no challenge to the foundations of this country. there is a challenge to o economy. and that we ought to be paying attention to. so, all the nice words that my friend from viinia talked about how important belief in god is, i agree. this resolution is a waste of time and a diversion and i reserve. the speaker pro tempe: the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i yield four minutes to the chairman of the judiciary committee whose leadership helped bring this resolution to the floor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i thank mr. forbes for yielding me time and introducing this resolution. there are few things that congress could do that could be

more important than passing this resolution. it ry affirms in god we trust as the oicial motto and provides congress the opportunity to renew its support with a principle that was ven rated by the founders of our country. in our declaration of independence, the founders declared, quote, we the reprentatives of the united states of amera, appealing to the supreme judge of the world, do with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence pledgeo each others our lives, our fortunes and sacred honor. president washington declared, let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. this event is in the hand of go james madon, the father of the constitution, declared a day of thanksving and acknowledgements of almighty

god. madison said that no people ought to feel greater obligations to sell bait the goodness of the great exposure of events and of the destiny of nations than the people of the united states. thomas jefferson, the author of the declaration of independee wrote, god, who gave us life, gave us liberty. and can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that the liberties are the gift of god. more recently, america's presidents have reafffirmed these same principles. president roosevelt said in teaching this democratic faith to american child, we need the aid of those great ethical religious teesks which are the heritage of our modern civilization, for not upon strength nor upon power, but upon the spirit of god shall our democracy be founded. president kennedy said, the

world is very different now and yet the same revolutionary beliefs are still at issue around the globe, the belief that the rights of man come not from the general rossity of the state, but from the hand of god. during the civil war, abraham lincoln counseled americans to have a firm reliance on god who has never yet foresaken this favored land and recognized it is god's pleasure to give us to see the light. and ronald reagan told the american people, we are a nation under god and i believe god intended for us to be free. thanks to the leadership of the the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, now, it is our turn to show that we still believe and recognize these same eternal truths. we can do that by approving a resolution that will allow

today's congress, as representatives of the american people, to reaffirm to the public and the world our nation's national motto, in god we trust. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lungren: in contrast to the suggestion that we don't need to havehis' affirmation, we had a lawsuit by an individual in my district about the words under god in the pledge of allegiance. that same individual is suing on this question, in god we trust. i had to fight strongly to get the words in place in the c.b.c.

where it is now. and i think we have admitted one, the leader of the civil rights revolution, martin luther king, made it clear in his letter from the birmingham jail, that, in fact, we act out of the requirements by the god in whom we trust. that makes us a nation that respects the liberties, the individual worth of every single member of our society. if he d not, in fact, looked to our historic belief in god as a basis for those principles, that all americans abide by, that is that we are equal in the eyes of god, and therefore, equal in the eyes of our government, he would not have been successful. this is an important message we need to reaffirm. it is under attack and we are not wasting time. how could we waste time in

making sure that in god we trust is, in fact, enshrined in our laws and as our national motto? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i would point out that the lawsuit that the gentleman from california referred lost at the supreme court which adds to the point that of course, in god w trust our national motto is not under attack or uer threat nor is under god in the pledge of allegiance under attack and this is an unnecessy relution. mr. lungren: the gentleman who brought that case to the supreme court has a case pending on the issue in god we trust and there is a federal actio out of the district court in wisconsin right now attempting to get us to take out the words in god we trust in the c.v.c.

mr. nadler: reclaiming my time. cases making these challenges occur all the time. they lose 100% of the time. and the's no reason to expect that that will change. so, again, in god we trust was our national motto yesterday, today. whether this resolution passes or not, it will be our national motto tomorrow. and we are wasting time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i yield to mr. miller from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: i thank mr. forbes in bringing this he legislation to the floor. d there are attacks on our national motto in god we trust. we know it has been attempted to be taken out of the c.v.c. this count for many, many years, since its inception has

relied on a faith in god. there are attacks every day. there are attacks on chaplains in our military services that are being told in some instances that they cannot perform religious duties in reference to their faith. we have the flag-folding ceremony that is under attack now on veterans' cemeteries where people are now being ld they aren't allowed too the flagolding ceremony during the death of a person that has served time in the military. you know, i think the unfortunate thing is as we stand here tod, this is important. this is not a waste of time. it's important that we stand here and we renew our natnal motto in god we trust. ronald reagan said, in fact, thatf we ever forget that we are one nation under god,hat we will then be one nation gone

under. i'm proud to stand with my good friend with mr. forbes, to reaffirm that our national motto is in god we trust, yesterday, day and tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: reserves. mr. forbes: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for introducing this resolion. in god we trust is an important part of american history and this resolution is necessary to ensure that it remain a part of our history. today, some individuals argued that the constitution says america cannot have any mention of god in a public atmosphere. these folks argue that americans must be censored when they talk in public about god and even

religion. i disagree with that contention and the supreme court agrees with that contention and using the writings of our founding fathers as a guide, i believe they would disagree with that contention. what makes us unique is the way we started as a nation. we had this concept in the declaration of independence that we are worth something as individuals and that we are worth something as individuals, not because governments gives us rights or men gives us rights but the declaration of independence says we are all endoweded by our creator with certain unalienable rights. in god we trusted then and in god we must continue to trust now. the truth is that our constitution says that we are guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom from religion and having the word god in our national motto does not establish an official religion for the country, but simply recognizes the role that faith and religion have played in our history. i believe as many other

americans do that america is a special place, chosen place and even an exceptional place and america is more than just another country on the globe as some say. we serve as a beekcon of light and one reason is because of god we trust. unless the lord watches over the city, the watch men watch in vain. we should reaffirm it. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: reserve. the speaker prtempore:he gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i yield one minute to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. harper: in god we trust, for over five decades america has celebrated this phrase as our national motto. this pronouncement is part of or

national anthem and engraved in both chambers of congress. but the united states foundation in god far outdates that the country has recognized. our country's first nation document the declaration of independence spoke to inalienable rights given to us by our creators. there is collective reliance on god as they drafted the united states constitution. when congress included biblical references and when the constitution was framed at the constitution in philadelphia, franklin reminded the delegates that god governance and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable the that an empire can rise without his aid. i ask my colleagues to support this and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i yield 1 1/2 nutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. broun: franklin wrote a speech urging the assembly to begin their morning session with daily prayer. franklin wrote, quote, i have lived a long time and longer i live the more convincing proof that i see that god governance in the affairs of men. without god's aid we shall succeed in this political building no build better than the builders of babel and our projects will be confounded and we ourselves shall be a by word down to future age.

just as franklin suggested, we must continue to affirmhat god has a place in blessing our government in gding our lawmakers and he has the ability to lead our nation back to a path of righteousness and prosperity. in god we trust has great meaning in our nation. and we must encourage its display in all public buildings and government institutions. so i urge my colleagues to pass house resolution 13. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i yield one minute to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one minute. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lankford: i would remind us in a time in 1861 when our

nation stood at the press pus of the civil war and the oratories stood in a loodshed. the director of the u.s. mint was to create a new scription to u.s. coins. he said no nation could be strong except in the strength of god. the director of the mint responded back with a variation of the phrase that he pulled out from the star spangled banner, so our motto is in god we trust. since it was a similar hymn and indicative of the american people, it was later put on a two cent coin at the end of the civil war. it's not some isolated incident of themerican dream. francis scott key, whether it was world war i or ii or the cold war fighting communism trying to set the united states apart from other nations around

the world is unique, our founding fathers and our unding documents are based around this statement. we are given our rights from god including life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. we believe it is god we trust. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: reserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. franks: i thank the gentleman. i thank the gentleman for bringing this forward. i know that down through the ages there has been this great question that has occurred to mankind, and it is a similar noll one. is god god or is man god? in god we trust or in man do we trust? i'd submit to you that the answer to that question,r. chairman, is one of profound significance. indeed, christopher columbus'

search for god was to search around the world and found this place called indeed. col nists wanted to worship god and wanted a way to worship god. the founding fathers did so in the name of god. their trust in god has had a profound impact on those that live in ts day. i submit to you if we answer the question t other way, mr. chairman, if man is god then anate yist state is the brutal as the thesis that it rests upon and there is no reason for us to gather in this place. we should just let anarchy to prevail because we are just worm food. indeed we have the time to reaffirm that god is god and in god we trust. thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from alabama, mr.

aderholt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one minute. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. speaker. and i rise today in support of this resolution, reaffirming in god we trust as our official motto of the united states of america. the motto is more than just a slogan. it defines the sentiments, i believe, of the foding fathers. while there never intended to be an official state religion they fully endorsed the idea of god. in the opening of the house and senate of prayer, to the private prayers of the founders, the fathers did put their faith in god. i believe they knew in their hearts that god had a special place for the united states of america and this new nation. and while they knew that a christian and goy nation could never be achieved by any legislation that congress could pass, they knew it was the peoplef the nation who would individually receive god in

their hearts for this for frule a godly nation. so today, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this resolution that's before us, reaffirming ourmotto, in god we trust. i yield ba the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i'd li to ask the gentleman from new york if he has additional speakers. not i am prepared to close after he finishes his remarks. mr. nadler: i have no additional speakers but i will speak. he gets to close. i'll speak then. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. naer: thank you, mr. speaker. i've listened to this discussion. there's no question that most people in this chamber, maybe everybody in this chamber, agrees with the phrase, with the motto, "in god we trust." i certainly do. there's no question it's the motto of this country. we've adopted. it's no question that it's not threatened. no one's seeking to change it

except for every so often there is a court case that gets thrown out and that's not new. there's no necessity for this resolution except reallyhe only reason for this resolution, frankly, is to declare how good we are, that we're going to reaffirm what needs no reaffirmation. and to divert attention from the issues that we really ought to be dealing with. so let me say again, "in god we trust" is the motto of the united states. it was yesterday. it is today. it will tomorrow whether we pass this resolution or not. we do have to be sensitive to the fact that not everyone in this country believes in god and they are just as much americans as those of us who do believe in god. and i see no reaso for passing this resolution to reaffirm what is already the case and

what we affirmed before. so it's a waste of time. and i am not saying that "in god we trust" is a wte of time or that the national mott ore is words or symbol but this resolution is words which does nothing, is intended to do nothing other than to get up and y we're godly, we're -- we're good people and it's true, we are, i hope, most of us are, b we don't have to declare it. and we don't have to make people who may not agree with it feel that they are not as american as we are and we don't have to spend the time in this house when we're not spending it on things that are important in terms of something that we can aually change, that we can actually do something about like creating jobs and affecting the economy. we can't change it.

it's the national motto. it changes nothing. if this resolution says we are abolishing the national motto, you say, you can debate it one way or another. it diverts attention. it wastes our time. it is unworthy for that reason. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida -- from virginia is recognized. mr. forbes: mr. speaker, the gentleman from new york says that we are simply declaring how good we are. that we are wasting our time. that we have other things that are important. mr. speaker, i rise today and i realize that there are some who don't see the difference between what we're doing and refirming "in god we trust" as our national motto fm naming a post office or commending some athletic team that's won the last sports contest, but i happen to believe that when thomas jefferson stated in the declaration of independence that our rights came from god,

he didn't think that it was irrelevant or not important. i happen to believe that when francis scott key penned that -- theaeaea >> the house went on to pass the measure 396-9. the chamber is out of session this week but members return monday november 14 at 2:00 eastern for legislative business. tonight, a live debate between republican presidential candidate herman cain and newt gingrich in houston at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. >> filling out the declaration

for candidacy, which has been completed and all it needs is your signature. and this is the filing fee of $1,000. >> you got that. >> a slogan. you might want to leave -- we do this every four years. >> we have a great secretary of state. >> we appreciate your leadership, we are going to make sure that new hampshire remains first in the nation. it's a responsibility and honor which new hampshire richly deserves and i'm happy to be part of that process and put my name on this paper hoping that this time, it will take and hopefully the nominee of our party. >> the new hampshire primary is now set for january 10 and follow campaign 2012 online with

a c-span video library and click on the tab to access the candidates and events, all searchable, shareable and free. the c-span video library. it's washington your way. >> next, remarks from house speaker john boehner on jobs and the u.s. economy. he spoke at the university of louisville and urged congress to find common ground despite ideological differences. introducing the speaker, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell. >> some of my equipment is falling off here. thank you, jim, for a generous introduction. let me thank you for the extraordinary transformation that has occurred here. it is spectacular, is it not? [applause]

>> and the center started before gary got here, but you could hardly recognize. but gary, you have been superb. thank you for your leadership. [applause] >> today we celebrate a first. this is the first time in the 20-year history of the center that we have had a sitting speaker of the u.s. house of representatives. as the second in line to the presidency right after the vice president and one of the few congressional offices specifically mentioned in the constitution, the speaker of the house plays a uniquely important role on capitol hill. and our guest today has performed that role exceptionally well. this is a moment of great challenges for our country. too many of our neighbors are looking for work.

here in kentucky, it's one out of 10. spending and borrowing by the federal government which has exploded in recent years is catching up with us. and for the first time ever, america has suffered a downgrade of its once pristine credit rating. but history has a way of giving america the leaders it needs in such moments, and speaker boehner is one of those leaders. john boehner knows the struggles small businesses face because he once faced them himself. he worked in his dad's tavern, a place called candy's cafe. he mopped floors, waited tables, tended bar. put himself through college working odd jobs a night shifts. he tarred roofs, refereed kids'

sports teams, drove tractors and worked as a night janitor. he was the first member of his family to graduate from college. after college, john became a salesman for a cincinnati company that represented manufacturers in the packaging and plastics industry. they had only a few clients and the company was barely hanging on when the owner passed away, john took over and found himself the president of a struggling small business and he turned it around. along the way, john learned a lot of important lessons. he learned how to meet a payroll, what it means to wrestle with government red tape and most of all, what it takes to create jobs. john learned that it is the hard work of the men and women in america's private sector, not government spending, that drives this economy. he learned that we must look to the private sector to grow the

economy and to create opportunity. john boehner is a small businessman at heart. and despite ascending to the highest congressional office in the land, i'm sure he'll tell you he is always going to be a small businessman at heart. john, you know as speaker of the house, you work along side the ghost of my hero, henry clay. clay shaped the speaker's office and used the office to establish the house of representatives as the body closest to the people and the clearest instrument of their will. john embodies the same spirit of democracy today. he leads a new house of representatives that he pledged would reflect the will of the people, focused and determined to put our nation's broken fiscal house in order.

john has made good on that promise. for the 112th congress, the right man has met his moment. and we are honored to have him here today. ladies and gentlemen, join me in welcoming the speaker of the house. [applause] >> good morning everyone. thank you. well, good morning and happy halloween. i want to start by thanking senator mcconnell, both for his friendship and for the honor of being invited here today to address this impressive institution here in the bluegrass state. senator mcconnell and i spend

and awful lot of time together and i couldn't be blessed with a better partner. he is a man of integrity and one of the best legislators that i have ever worked with. i'm truly grateful for his friendship and for our partnership and i'm deeply honored that he asked me to come and be with you here today. i want to thank our host, the president of the university and the director of the mcconnell center who happened to get his doctorate from miami university of ohio, which is located in my congressional district. as senator mcconnell told you about me growing up, big family, working around the tavern and what i tell people the lessons i learned growing up are the lessons that i need to do my job every day. i learned to get along and get things done as a family. you grew up around a bar,

tending bar, doing dishes and deal with every character that walks in the door. trust me, i learned all the skills to do my job. [laughter] >> i'm a product of the free enterprise system. i was one of those small business people around the country who make our economy grow. so i know the challenges that they face meeting a payroll, by creating jobs and dealing with the government every day. i got involved with the government because i saw politicians killing the goose that lays the golden egg and that's our free enterprise system and i decided to do something about it and ended up running for office. i never thought i would be speaker of the house. but the things that drive me to get into this business are the same things that drive me today. as a small business person, i thought government was too big,

i thought it spent too much and i didn't think anyone was holding it accountable and i don't myself today one bit different than the first day i walked into the united states congress almost 21 years ago. you know, today, i speak to all of you at a time of great challenge for our country and frankly, our country's economy. and whether you are one of the students at the mcconnell center or one of the thousands of students that pass through these doors every year, the condition of our economy is something that millions of young americans are facing today. the unemployment rate is stuck at just over 9%. we have a national debt that exceeds or nearly exceeds the entire size of our economy. and millions of americans are out of work. because of government inability to focus on these challenges, it's also when confidence in our

nation's governing institutions is at an all-time low. after being speaker of the house now for nearly a year, it's more clear to me than ever what some of the obstacles are in washington. and as i mentioned to you, today, it's simple. faith in our government has never been high, but doesn't need to be this low. you know, the american people need to see that despite our differences, we can get things done. we can start by recognizing that common grund and compromise are not -- ground and compromise are not the same thing. let me explain. common ground and compromise are commonly and mistakenly equated with each other in our political discourse these days. and i think the mistake is made by individuals on both sides of the ideological spectrum. shortly after being elected speaker, i said i would prefer

the term common ground as a compromise, and i do believe there is a significant difference. there is no question that the american people want elected leaders who will stand on principle and speak to those principles. they want leaders who will do what they say they will do, keep their promises and fight for them. i believe the american people expect us to get things done. they expect us to seek common ground and to act on it. and so common ground doesn't mean compromising on your principles. common ground means finding places where your agenda overlaps with that of the other party, locking arms and getting it done. without violating your principles. and so too often common ground and compromise are assumed to mean the same thing. and as a result, we sometimes see people with good intentions on both sides of the aisle

operating out of an aversion to common ground because they don't want to be viewed as compromising on their principles. as a result, there is a less functional government which results in further erosion in trust in our institutions of government. we can't afford to let that happen. we need to seek common ground and act on it where it is found. we did that on the trade agreements several weeks ago. the president signed these three trade agreements into law that had been in the works for five years. these agreements will result in the creation of some 250,000 american jobs. they were enacted with bipartisan support and no one violated their principles to get that done. the same thing occurred just last week in the house on another jobs bill by congresswoman black from

tennessee that repeals the 3% withholding tax that the i.r.s. imposes on small businesses that deal with any level of our government. we scheduled it for a vote. the president embraced it and it passed easily. now in both of these cases, the trade bills and the i.r.s. bill, we found common ground and acted on it. no one was compromising on their principles. we were doing what the american people sent us to washington to do. they want more of it. and i think we need to continue our focus on jobs. my colleagues and i have a plan for jobs and it's been our focus for this entire year. i gave a speech last month at the economic club of washington where i talked about the need for us to liberate our economy from the shack wills of government. as a guy who ran a small business, i certainly believe until we get away from a government that is meddling, manipulating and micro managing

our economy we won't see lasting job growth in our economy. i realize that president obama and vice president biden are probably never going to agree with that statement and will take a different administration to do the things that i think are truly needed to turn our economy around. but that does not and solve us of our obligation to work together to work together to do what we can do now. while our differenceses are many, there are overlaps between the two parties that can make a difference in the crisis that our economy faces. i want to highlight three bipartisan bills that are opportunities to begin that process of finding common ground to build on a bipartisan moment that have been established over the past month or two. first is a bill introduced by one of my colleagues from ohio, bob gibbs, reducing regulatory

burdens act. the bill is designed to eliminate costly and duplicative permitting applications for pesticide applications. the e.p.a. issued permits for pesticides that are used near waterways but pesticides are highly regulated and this creates new burdensome requirements for farmers, ranchers and job creators. this bill temporarily stops it. 57 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted for that. nearly 1/3 of the democratic caucus but has been stopped in the united states senate since march 31. today, yes, today, the court order goes into effect. it should have been stopped months ago. it's disappointing that the deadline has arrived and this bipartisan bill has not been

enacted, but the senate can still act and it's a clear opportunity for common ground on jobs. on october 6, the house passed house resolution 2681, cement sector regulatory act. i know we have some strange names for these bills. estimates show that nearly 20% of our nation's cement plants will have to shut down if these new cement regulations go into effect. eliminating thousands of jobs. this bill that passed the house gives federal regulators additional time and guidelines to develop achievable governing emissions from cement manufacturing facilities. steppeded time line is to make sure we don't have plants shutting down and putting people out of work. when president obama came to bridge over the high river between ohio and kentucky, he

did his event at a concrete plant called hilltop concrete, and the workers at that plant may end up being in jeopardy because of the rules that we intend to stop with this bill. so, 25 democrats voted for it, including one of their leaders. i'm certain president obama wants to protect the jobs of those people at hilltop concrete. and if there are differences, let's work through them, because i don't believe there is any reason we can't get it done. another one of these bills is the e.p.a. regulatory relief act. it's a bipartisan bill sponsored by a democrat and a republican. the bill gives federal regulators additional time and guidelines to develop achievable governing emissions from industrial, commercial and institutional boilers and

incinerators. i know, it's pretty arcane. as the rules were being implemented, it's pretty clear if you operate a boiler, you have some huge new requirements that you have to meet. so we have 41 of our democrat colleagues who voted for it. it's a commonsense bill that will protect jobs. both sides worked together on this. there was no reason to quote, compromise. we found common ground and no reason that we can't get this done. the danger is that these areas of overlap will end up in some big political pawn game in washington d.c., held hostage to a broader debate while the two parties clash over their various fill sfiss -- philosophies. we owe it to you the young

people who will be entering the work force, to get this work done. and i think we owe you action on another issue, and that's the debt crisis that faces our country. the current generation of students will graduate from schools like this one at a time when our country faces questions about its role in the world. our competitiveness is declining while our debt is increasing. and if you are a student here at the university of louisville right now or a student at another university, there is no one who has more at stake than you do. as a consequence of our debt, the united states faces the possibility of downgrades in our nation's credit status, thereby increasing our interest costs on the nearly $15 trillion of debt that we have added up. and we face the possibility of downgrades due to our failure to

deal decisively with a spending epidemic in our government, and specifically by our failure to deal with flifmentse that have us spending trillions moreover the next decade than what we bring in. this can be disruptive in response to what happened over the summer when we were pushing up against the deadline to increase our debt limit. the stock market plunged and it rattled many americans. here again is a place where we need to search for common ground. and the joint select committee or the supercommittee is tasked with finding $1.2 trillion in savings that can be used to reduce the deficit. and the committee's deadline is rapidly approaching. nobody thought that the committee's job would be easy, and clearly, it hasn't been and i don't think anyone is

surprised. but i have high hopes here in the days ahead that we can find common ground. everyone knows that we can't solve the debt crisis without making structural changes to our entitlement programs, you know it, i know it and president obama knows it. if we don't make these changes, the programs won't be there for your generation when you need them, and i think everybody understands that. but the fact of the matter is, strengthening these programs will be good for our country. and nothing would send a more reassuring message to the markets than taking bipartisan efforts to fix medicare, medicaid and social security. jeb hensarling from texas and patty murray a democrat in the state of washington couldn't be

more different idealogically, but neither of them are going to compromise on their principles, but i believe they share a commitment to finding the solutions, finding those areas of overlap between the parties and getting this job done. common ground, without compromising on principles, is the recipe that produced some of the greatest policy milestones in recent memory. 1996 welfare reform law is probably the most successful domestic policy reform of the past quarter century and enacted by a republican congress and democrat president bill clinton. and it happened because both sides knew what had to be done and they locked arms and got it done. the same type of effort can lead to success on jobs now and on our debt.

this is personal for me and personal for senator mcconnell as well. we want these things to happen. i didn't take this job to preside over a partisan screaming match. i took this job to be speaker of the whole house so we could truly listen to the people of our country, those who truly hold power in this country, listen to their priorities and get stuff done. we owe it to you, the current generation, future generation. as i said earlier, faith in government has never been high. it doesn't have to be this low, though. and i think it's natural to have doubts about the government. americans have had skepticism of our government since our founding but we shouldn't lose faith in our country or in a system the founding fathers designed for us. it has kept our nation strong for two sentries and will do so for centuries in the future. i want to thank all of you for

the honor of being with you here today and i look forward to your questions. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, speaker boehner. in the same spirit of common ground, i should note that we have a number of dignitaries in the audience and i can't name them all but we should acknowledge that our congressman john yarmuth is here with us today. [applause] >> and our mayor, greg fisher. so thank you for being with us today. i know you saw the cards coming down with questions and so let's begin our questions. i'll call on john weber to ask

the first question from the audience. john. >> thank you, speaker boehner. the first question that i received deals with the president's jobs bill and his recent action with executive orders. i was wondering if you would like to comment on how he is doing that and how congress would respond as well as how you might pass some of the legislation in pieces. >> well, as i made clear in my speech, i think it's our job to find common ground and about a month ago, the majority leader, eric cantor, and i sent a letter to president obama outlining areas between our jobs bill and his jobs bill where i thought there was common ground. half a dozen areas that i thought we could work together on. and i expect we are going to continue to work in a bipartisan manner to address those issues where you can find common ground. now, with regard to the president's activities here over

the last week where he has decided that maybe the constitution doesn't matter, it's the president who taught constitutional law, if i'm correct, so he understands article 1, section 1 of the constitution gives the congress the power of the purse. so we are going to make sure that we aren't violating the constitution while we are trying to find common ground to try to get our economy going again and getting the american people back to work. >> katherine. >> thank you, mr. speaker. we have a question from a young lady in the audience wanting to know what your favorite part of being the speaker is. >> doing events like this. anything outside of washington is a lot more fun than being in washington. you know, i think mitch will probably agree with this. it's where america has its big

debate. and regardless of where people are on the ideological spectrum, their representatives come to washington, 535 of us and we have the battle of ideas. and yes, we argue, yes, we fight. but, you know, i'll tell you that 95% of my colleagues, i think, are doing exactly what their constituents want. democrats or republicans. now, you know, the other 5% we'll not talk about them, all right? but listen, both of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are sincere but that doesn't mean it's going to be pretty every day. and so being outside of washington, you are not in the middle of the pressure cooker, it's a lot more fun. this is a lot more fun than

sitting in my office, looking at mitch, trying to figure out how we are going to solve the problem of the day when nobody wants to agree to do anything. [laughter] >> thank you, mr. speaker. a member of our audience asks what is your opinion on the occupy wall street movement? >> i understand people's frustrations and the economy is not producing jobs like they want and there is a lot of erosion of competence in our government. and frankly, under the first amendment, people have the right to speak out and protest. but that doesn't mean they have permission to violate the law. and so, beyond that, you know, i lived through the riots over the vietnam war in the late 1960's and early 1970's and you can see how some of those activities got

out of control. a lot of us lived through the race riots of 1968 that clearly was out of control. and i'm hopefully -- hopeful these demonstrations will continue to be peaceful. >> mr. speaker, thank you for being with us today. it means a lot to all of us in the room. what do you think is the future of the health care bill? >> the affordable health care act, at least i think that's what the title is and i call it obamacare and the president wants to call obamacare, it will ruin the best health care deliver system in the world and will bankrupt our country. that opinion isn't shared by the president. but i think it's doomed. i think it's doomed for three reasons. it could be the courts that decide that the individual mandate for every american to buy health insurance, they may

rule it unconstitutional. secondly, there is going to be an election coming up in a year and it's clear that republicans and some number of democrats want it to go. and thirdly, it may just fall on its own weight. over the course of this last year, you have seen various parts of this bill kind of fall away because it wasn't thought out very well or cost a lot more than people think it should have, but you know, there was one provision in the class act, long-term care provisions in obamacare that the administration has decided they aren't going to go forward on and the provision in there was an amendment offered by a republican senator during the debate. and it said that they could not proceed with this long-term care program unless it was actuarily sound for the next 75 years. that's the basis for how we look

at big entitlement programs and because of that one provision, they could never see where this was going to be viable. frankly, i think we ought to take the same provision and apply it to the rest of obamacare. if it is not economically viable and affordable over the long term of the program, then we probably should not proceed. [applause] >> john. >> mr. speaker, another member of the audience refers to the tax policy under both presidents clinton and bush and the respective economic boom and recession and wondered what the g.o.p.'s evidence for tax cuts as an economic stimulus would be. well, i believe the more money we allow the american people to hold, whether they be families

or small businesses is money that will be spent, saved or invested, all of which is good for the economy and while there is a role for government to play, money that goes to the government does not have the kind of multiplier effect than if it's left in the private sector. i'm a big believer that the government should only take what it needs. the problem we have in washington is we have a spending problem. i have watched it for 20 years. mitch has watched it. we have -- we have spending that's out of control and needs to be brought under control. when i was a first-time candidate in 1990, i said this, i said the sooner we tackle our entitlement spending, the easier it will be to make changes necessary to ensure that those programs are around for the long-term. that was about 21 years ago.

and what have we done in the last 21 years? at best, nipped around the edges. now what is happening is that we are chasing a runaway train. there are 10,000 baby boomers retiring every single day. people like me, 10,000 a day, 10,000 new people on social security, 10,000 new people on medicare, people are living longer and accessing medicaid benefits. this is not sustainable, not in any way, shape or form. and the changes that need to be made -- we aren't talking about horrendous changes in the system, but small changes that will have a big impact over the next 10, 20, 30 years. that's where senator mcconnell and i are focused as we look at this debt commission, the supercommittee and the job that it has to do. but we have a spending problem,

big one. >> kevin. >> thank you, mr. speaker, we have another question from the audience. someone wants to know about what your plans are for educational reform. >> when it comes to educational reform, the secretary has been in conversations with both democrats and republicans trying to find a way forward. and you know, just like any big job that you might have around the house, breaking it down into smaller pieces really gives you a chance to get the job down. on the house side, the chairman of the educational and work force committee, john klein from minnesota has broken it down into five pieces and i think we have passed four of the pieces and all four of them passed with broad bipartisan support. the fifth piece will be more difficult because we are into

the accountability parts of the law. but i think it's time that we take a very serious look at our education system. the facts are this. about half of america's kids get an education. only about half of them get an education. and i don't think we can compete long-term only educating half of america's kids. we're not -- the current educational system, the structure that we have was designed in over 100 years ago when most families had two parents there, the kind of distractions in the evening weren't as prevalent and people did their homework. we have a -- we have different needs today and bigger challenges in trying to find ways to educate today's children. and regardless of what kind of a

household a child might be born in, i think our society owes every child a chance at a decent education. that's not happening today and it should happen. >> mr. speaker, how do you feel about the president's promise to withdraw our troops from iraq by christmas? >> listen, we all want our solders to come home. we have sacrificed hundreds of billions in treasure and thousands of american lives to help free the iraqi people from the grips of saddam hussein and to help those people fighting for freedom and democracy. in all this 10 years' worth of effort, all these lives and all this money and my concern is that if we just walked out of

iraq, we are risking everything that we spent. the iraqis clearly are not capable of defending their borders. they need to skire their airspace and don't have the systems they need in place for their military. they don't have the kind of intelligence infrastructure that's needed for a country their size. and right next door, you have the rirnian regime just continue to forment the middle east. nothing would make them happier than to see us go because the yire ands would attempt to fill that void quicker than you can blink your eyes. i'm concerned about it. there is some discussion at the state department fulfilling a lot of these missions rather than our military. i'm not sure the state

department is capable of doing this because they have never done it, but we will continue to monitor this very closely. [applause] >> mr. speaker, a member of the audience tells us that she has disassociated herself from the republican party. how does the republican party reconcile their differences and bring her back into the party and others like her? >> we have differences in our party. you have divisions in the democrat party. neither party is what i will call pure. you aren't going to get pure when you have a two-party system in a country. what i try to do is focus on those things that unite us as a party, as opposed to those things that divide us. there are always going to be differences, but by focusing on

what units us, that helps. and secondly, i would say this, if we are listening to the american people and following their will, it will bring our party closer together and i think both parties closer together if we'll listen to the american people and act on their desires, not our own. [applause] >> we have time for one more question. john. >> mr. speaker, the last question that we have for you today. thank you again for coming on behalf of the mcconnell scholars and the rest of the university of louisville community, the last question i have for you today revolves around the bridges project that is central here in louisville and katrina. how do you feel about infrastructure spending in those specific scenarios?

>> that was contained in the letter we sent to president obama a month ago because it is an area of common ground. everybody believes we have infrastructure deficiencies and more needs to be spent to repair, replace and in some cases, build new infrastructure. nobody wants to pay for it. and as a result, we have been limping through the last three, four years with what is contained in a highway bill. you know, re-authorizing this for three months, four months. so i have spent the last 10 weeks focused in on where do we find the revenue to really do something significant for our infrastructure. second part of this is -- we are going to find a new source of revenue for our infrastructure and we need to look at what we are doing with it. there are 116 federal programs

financed out of the highway bill. if i rattled some of them off, your head would be spinning. if you look back over the years what we have done with highway funds, we have built highways and bridges and sports stadiums and beautified everything under the sun. we have flittered away more highway tax dollars that you can ever imagine. we are going to clean up this mess so the money truly does get to the projects that we expect, and why do we need to spend five, 10 years going through all the regulatory nightmare that it takes to build a new bridge, as an example. why can't we streamline this process -- [applause] >> we have to streamline this process so we can get the projects started and done

because lengthening all of this, it drives up the costs more and allows us to do that much less when it comes to rebuilding our nation's infrastructure. i just want to say thanks for the opportunity to be here. as you can well tell, senator mcconnell are great friends, great partners and we work at this and this doesn't happen by accident. what i said earlier, i couldn't have a better partner and i really do appreciate the opportunity to be here today with all of you. just a regular guy with a big job. thank you. [applause] >> mr. speaker, this has been a great honor for us. we would like to present you with a small token of our

appreciation. join me in thanking speaker of the house john boehner. >> thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a live debate between herman cain and newt gingrich and have agreed to a debate on the u.s. economy and social issues. that will take place in houston tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span and watch on c-span.org and listen on crmp span radio. >> c-span's web site campaign 2012 from recent events to the earliest parts of the campaigns, read the latest comments from reporters, from social media sites and links to media partners in the early primary caucus states, iowa, south

carolina and new hampshire all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> steny hoyer on the ongoing work of the joint deficit reduction committee. he is interviewed by major garrett and watch "newsmakers" tomorrow here on c-span. >> next, a discussion on each of the republican presidential candidates and what their strengths and weaknesses are. we'll hear from two political strategists on the latest poll numbers and who they think will win. this panel runs 40 minutes. >> vice president of "national journal" and on behalf of everybody, it's my pleasure to welcome you here this morning

live and give a warm welcome and live streaming this on nationaljournal.com. we hope that the various zugs you hear this morning will help provide insight on the poll numbers, trends and key races coast to coast and give you a robust discussion on what's driving the republican presidential contest and president obama's re-election campaign. we have four dynamic panels this morning and i encourage you to stay. if you would like to participate in the event today, we encourage you to do so. today, we will be taking questions and facilitating the zugs about the event with yahoo, our online partner. there will be moderation of the questions. post questions and comments via twitter, that's pound and nj

preview. in your seats you will have received an index card and write questions on the card and submit them up front and they will get passed on for answering. as many of you know, "national journal" presents live discussion on policy and politics. we see events as another opportunity for us to help put attention and perspective on some of the most significant issues and concerns facing our country. this election preview event would not be possible without the thoughtful and generous support from our premium underwriters, united technologies and national association of home builders. i would like to thank the american beverage association for their support this morning as well. they have been dedicated partners with "national journal" and we appreciate their partnership. we are deep into our 2012

election and campaign coverage. we launched our 2012 decoded blog on nationaljournal.com and will have coverage and insights through next year's electrics. we are proud of our 2012 election partnership with cbs news. we have reporters on the presidential campaign trail and sharing content across our digital platforms. our partnership now includes a republican presidential debate in south carolina on november 12 where they will ask the entire republican presidential field about national security and defense issues. we hope you will watch on cbs on november 12. as part of that partnership, it is my pleasure to introduce our first panel moderated by one of washington's most respected journalists.

joining bob in the middle is steve, partner at the alexandria strategic company purple strategies. he is an adviser to democratic candidates running for statewide office and charlie black. former political director of the r.n.c. and served as senior adviser to presidents ronald reagan and the gentlewoman is recognized h.w. bush. welcome, gentleman. >> i think we ought to get right to it and i'm going to ask both of you to start here. herman cain, is he for real, charlie? >> herman is for real. herman is a good man, a great leader and has accomplished a lot of things in life. and obviously, without many support or infrastructure in terms of a staff and consultants

made himself a front runner in the race. it's unfortunate this issue has arisen this week and we don't know the facts and it's hard to judge how it's going to turn out but herman is for real. >> steve? >> herman may or may not be for real. what is for real and you see it time and again, there seems to be a cap omit romney's support and the republican primary voter, every time romney looks like he is going to close the deal, he says wait a minute. we aren't ready. herman is the alternative to mitt romney and there seems to be a bracket going on where you have somebody who is occupying that space and they are usually in the lead or right with mitt romney, but that changes and i expect that before too long, it will change again. it will be interesting to see if rick perry can get back up. he has had an awfully bad three weeks and i'm not sure the speech in new hampshire helped

him. >> that is an interesting point and i think what you say because we started out this year and first it was michele bachmann who looked like she would be the alternative to romney. and she went up and then went down. then rick perry comes along, he goes straight up, makes a couple of stumbles from the debates, he goes down. the interesting thing about cain, he has made several stumbles would be the most charitable way to describe it, but he is still up there. and it suggests to me that whatever else you want to say about him, he is connecting with a certain segment of the republican party. but how strong is that, charlie? i mean, can that sustain? because i think what steve says, i think part of it does have to do with mitt romney. >> well, you know, herman's had a lot of staying power over several weeks while being in the

news every day. i tend to think he will have staying power, but, you know, steve described one way of looking at the race as sort of romney over here and everybody else competing to see who is going to run against romney. i don't think different people come and go, depending on how much news coverage they get. you have to look at it as a state-by-state contest. i do not think there is a cap on mitt romney. his unfavorable rating is very low. in iowa, i have not looked at the latest numbers, he is probably something like 60 favorable and 20 on favorable among republicans. that means the choice is narrow. in new hampshire, he is rock solid. all these other candidate to

have risen up and the national polls and nobody has ever been within 20 points of mitt romney in new hampshire. >> he is the former governor. >> and she lives there. he is popular there -- and he lives there. he is popular there. i do not think that romney has high negatives. >> let's go back and talk about rick perry. this is another extraordinary -- what happened to him? >> that is a really good question. i am not sure that -- he is very fortunate that this herman cain thing came along.

it appears that he has been drinking. i do not know if that is the case. people are wondering if that is the case. it is not a very presidential. and to some, it is just odd. i do not know what was going on with rick perry that evening. i do think that he has to reset his campaign. nastily, he was close to about 40% -- nationally, he was close to about 40% about six months ago. he has to reset, he has plenty of money. if he can avoid the debate and avoid giving speeches like he did on friday night, there is a chance that he can get back in this thing. herman cain probably is not going to be --

>> what about this video, charlie? i would describe it as off. i do not know rick perry or anything about his personal habits. it was the strangest -- i have never seen anything quite like it. he is jumping around. just acting silly. what do you think was going on?

he is still a competitive -- a competitor. i agree that he has fallen recently. these debates are very important and he needs to to end up his game a little bit. he is a serious competitor. >> there is obviously no love lost between those camps and i know you were very identified with george bush. >> i do not think we have enough time for me to go through the whole history. [laughter] as often happens, tensions have developed. there were tensions between the staffs of people and between the principles and that is the case here. gov. perry is a tough campaigner. senator kay bailey hutchison, who was beloved by a lot of

people, ran against perry. it was a pretty bitter race. there are some lingering problems of that. i think president bush and governor perry would say they get along fine. they just do not hang out together. >> it is extraordinary, i saw a poll yesterday, that had herman cain leading perry in taxes -- in taxes. is that for real? >> people do not have to focus on who they are really going to vote for. they have the option of collecting six or seven of the people running. gov. perry has had a divisive primary in texas very recently. he is not unanimously popular. he has run a good race. >> called do you think -- how do

you thing it comes down in the end? what does the white house think? do you think that romney gets the nomination? >> you can tell what the white house thinks based on who they're going after. they are not spending a lot of time on herman cain. they are going full guns on mitt romney. i think he is going to be the nominee. it is great fun if you are a democrat watched the other side go through this. the republicans are going to close ranks around mitt romney and i think he is going to be a formidable candidate. >> i think the governor -- i think mitt romney has always been the front-runner. he has a terrific organization. he has that bastion in new hampshire, that i mentioned. he is the front-runner.

the democratic national committee is running ads against romney, state-specific ads and the target states. i saw one in arizona over the weekend. >> it is ok when we do it. >> it seems to me that right now, there is a divide within the republican party. you have the establishment republicans over here. it seems to me that ronnie is slowly building some strength -- romney is slowly building some strength in that wing of the party. you have the other side that is headed up by the tea party. they seem to have the most questions about romney. do you think we could see something in the end where if romney does get the nomination, those folks on the right over

there in the republican party would break away and say we cannot do it and maybe form some sort of a third party? >> that is not going to happen. for one thing, if somebody were to get on the ballots, they should have started already. but there are some differences on some issues among republicans. they are united on one thing. they all want to defeat president obama. if you have been out talking to people out in the trenches, no matter what they have to say, the always finish the conversation, but we must beat obama. if they think governor romney can do that, they will be behind him. >> do you think republicans will be excited about mitt romney? >> if you think about these things, a primary contests always end up with whoever

emerges as the nominee is stronger as a result of crisis. that was true of john kerry. president obama, certainly, was a lot stronger candidate having don't -- having gone to the contest with hillary clinton. webber art -- whoever our nominee is well looked stronger next april than they do now. i think we will -- i think we are favored to win the election. president obama is a terrific campaigner. he will have the money. he is personally popular and likable. i expected to be a close race. unless there is some dramatic turn in the economy, i think we will win the election. >> let's talk about -- most people think that barack obama is going to be the nominee. what does he have to do?

what kind of shape is cn right now? i think he has problems. -- is key and right now? >> the ask the president what they wanted for his birthday and he said, an opponent. it is below where you need to be in order to get reelected. what he needs instead of a referendum, where people are saying, do i like the job he is doing, he needs to make a choice. he is starting to do that, but he does not have an opponent. it is a little bit more difficult to do. he has already started to say things like, the choice is going to be between protecting the environment and rolling back environmental regulations. he is going to make this an

economic populist kind of a message against his opponent. if it is mitt romney, who is a very successful busy part -- business person, but does that seem to have a common touch, it is going to be a little bit easier to make that case. against rick perry, it is going to be a little bit more challenging. i think perry is a much better campaigner than people give him credit for. do not underestimate the sky. when he is out there campaigning, he is very good. his team just runs savage with his attack ads. i do not think that will work on a multi candidate field. in a one-on-one race, he would be a tougher candidate than people give him credit for. mitt romney is a little bit

more, to an everyday voter, he seems a little bit more out of touch. he has less in common with the middle class. the kind of voters who will have to vote republican. it is not release stated. i am sure -- it is not clearly stated. his policies have more to do that. >> i do not think so in terms of his religious affiliation. there is a small handful of people that might go against him because of that. they all live in states that we're going to carry any how, mostly southern states. the president has a big problem. you have all heard it before. no president has been reelected with unemployment above 8% since roosevelt during the depression. you know what is on the people's minds in the country. jobs. unemployment.

they are unhappy about to to a much federal spending and deficits and debts and they do not like obamacare. by definition, the race would be a referendum on president obama. could the republicans lose? i suppose we could nominate someone who was not acceptable to the independent voters. we did not plan to do that. none of the people we talked to will do that. >> it is all about the economy. 27 of the last 29 months, unemployment has been 9% or higher. charlie cook tell me the other day a very few months between 1948, when harry truman was elected in 2008, when there has been 17 months of unemployment, when it was above 9% in that entire period.

that is a tall fence. do you agree? >> i agree it is a tall fence, but what matters most in a presidential campaign at the end is when it comes to the economy, do people feel like things are getting better? or do they think things are the same or getting worse? i think the president's team would acknowledge that if people feel like things are getting worse, those could be a very long days for the president. people feel like the economy is getting better, and we're on the right track, the president will have a good day on election day. a lot of this is outside his control. a great deal of it is within his control. whoever the republicans nominate is not going to be well defined outside the republican primary states. that is particularly true of the tappan's early. >> what does that mean? >> -- if it happens early.

>> what does that mean? >> you will have a nominee very fast without the kind of exposure nationally that he would want to have. john mccain was very well-known and pretty well light when he emerged as the nominee. these guys are going to be neither well known nor well liked. we did a poll and the 12 states that are the states that fought back and forth over the last three elections, nine of them fled from 2004 to 2008. in those states, mitt romney and rick perry had a net negative approval rating. those are the state's the most likely to determine the outcome of this election. in those states, the president is stronger. he is running a little bit behind mitt romney right now, but he is ahead of rick perry. they are basically within the margin of error. those are the states that are

going to determine the outcome. people want him to succeed. his job approval rating is below his favorability rating. that is his opportunity. >> his approval rating in yet -- for the economy is in the low '30's. again, people like some of these other incumbents. they threw them at of office because of poor performance on the economy. the dnc is already running ads against mitt romney. we will have somebody. we will be able to respond and draw the contrast with the president. i think the president can keep this a close race but i do not see how he can win if there is no movement in the economic numbers. he has only got a few months to turn that perception around.

that said, it is a mistake for the president to run on class warfare, like he is out trying to do right now. who was the last person to win on class warfare? was it al gore? bill clinton did not run on class warfare. i guess nobody has ever won on class warfare. >> most people would say that bill clinton did run, not on class warfare, they would say that the president presented economic choices for people and. -- people. it may sound like a class warfare to the person who is on the other side, but they are a pretty crowded -- they are a pretty clever crowds. the president is a very good campaigner. he is now getting into campaign mode. he is starting to draw the

choice. most of these choices, the public is 65% on the side of the choice that the president is offering. he is very careful to highlight those things. anybody who sells the president george is making a big mistake. -- the president short it is making a big mistake. >> let's have a couple of minutes on the congress and what is going to happen. this congress is totally dysfunctional. it has the lowest approval rating since polling has begun. what's do you think -- what do you see happening when people going to be -- into the voting booth? are they going to throw out a lot of incumbents regardless of party? what happens? >> happen, but historically, it never has.

if we have a close presidential race, they are not likely to be coattails', the odds are overwhelming republicans will hold the house. the researchers testing -- the redistricting process is going to turn out to be a wash. it might have strengthened some of the republican incumbent to one democratic seats last election. i did not see much change in the house. the senate is up for grabs. i think the odds are better than 50-50 that the republicans will win the senate. yes, some incumbents might lose. you're not -- in history, we have never thrown out half the congress. >> if there were ever going to

be a year, it would be 2012. it is a pox on both your houses. it is unlikely that the democrats will take back the house. there are a lot of republicans seats in -- that were won in 2010 that are fundamentally democratic states. they will have a gravity problem on those. the paul ryan budget, which every republican voted for, is something that got a lot of attention early. it has not gotten a lot of attention lately. that is going to come back. when they do that, and they remind people what they have voted today to senior citizens, if you are going to get into generational warfare, you want to take a generation that shows

up at the polls every two years. what the republicans have done, they can argue that it is good pongid -- good budget policy, it is bad politics. you will see a lot of attention given to that. clocks all right. -- all right. >> chris moody will tell us -- tell us what you are going to do. >> we have been monitoring twitter, the discussion on line, and questions from our audience in the room. we are taking a selection from those. >> shall we take some questions? >> this first question -- what

do you believe that rick perry needs to do to remedy the video situation? >> governor perry needs to get out and focus on his record of job creation, which is better than that of any other state. he is an effective campaigner. he needs to tune up his game a little bit in the debates. maybe with a little rehearsal and practice, he can handle them better. i think he is a serious competitor. he does have a lot of money, which he can use. >> a question from the audience -- can you discuss your thoughts on the possibility of a third- party candidate? what are the chances we will see a third man or woman on the debate stage in 2012?

>> the fact of the matter is the ballot access requirements for any third party make it 3 difficult -- make it a very difficult to mount a third-party candidacy. it is looking at these ballots access restrictions or qualifications that make it all but impossible to do. i think charlie is right about, at the end of the day, there'll be a spirited debate within the republican party about who the nominee is going to be. but they will produce a nominee. that nominee will be stronger as a result of having gone through this process and will be in better shape to compete in the general election. one of the things that happened was startedent obama m

the general election with an organization in place in every state. that was an advantage. i think you will see that on the republican side, too. this campaign is not going to look like 2008 at all. it is going to look like 2004. it is going to be a battle for every electoral vote. it is not going to be 100 but it was in 2008. there will not be a third-party candidate. >> i agree. there is not time for it. there is not a demand for it. republicans will unite behind a nominee, whoever that is. negative motivation is more powerful in politics than positive motivation. people want to defeat president obama. they are opposed to its policies and they are afraid the implementation would change the nature of our country.

we will have a united party. who will appeal to the independents? that is the road battleground. >> this next question is from our audience. to you believed a sarah palin- like candidate could be added to the ticket to appeal to the right? >> picking a vice president is a complex process and it is very personal to the nomination. i do not have any idea what the various potential nominees preferences are on that. we do not have any moderates are running. if you looked at to their records, their positions on the issues, there is nobody in their

view would not get at least an 85% american conservative the rating. i did not think there will be any need to do philosophical balance. -- ballots. there are all lot of factors that go into the process. it is a useless exercise to speculate about it until you have the nominee and they began to process. >> there is a question from twitter that presumes that herman cain is a part of republicans looking for someone other than raw meat. do you expect there to be another before -- other than romney. you expect there to be another before this is over? there has been talk about newt gingrich. >> it seems to be a rotating

circuit of anti-romney candidate. it was michele bachmann for a while. and everybody will get a turn in the barrel. my republican friends tell me to watch for new gingrich. he is somebody that is quite serious, conservatives loved him. they grew up with him because he has been a round for a long time. as herman cain goes through the flavor of the month, you might see somebody like newt gingrich or rick santorum rise as a result of coming cannes fall -- current tim kaine's fall. -- kurt tim kaine -- herman cain's fall.

i am having fun watching him. >> we do not know what the events of the week will cause an doubt regard, but it is not over. in every early stage, mitt romney is ahead. >> why did john huntsman never become the alternative? >> jon huntsman has a great record as a governor, as an ambassador, he is a smart person. it was always going to be very difficult to step out of the obama administration. people have held him at arm's

length for having served in the administration. he would be better off to run later. i hope he will run later. he would be a good president. >> which states do you believe are keyed to president obama 's success? >> three of them are decided by three percentage points or less. in the midwest, it is ohio and iowa. it is new hampshire. it is arizona, colorado, florida, north carolina, virginia. i do not mean to be shamelessly promoting this, but it is interesting. if you go to purple

strategies.com, there is a poll. it breaks down all these states. it breaks them down by issues or region or partisan affiliation. if you look at independents in those states, they are the people were going to decide to the president of the united states is. it is probably a narrow or a broader than that. whoever wins virginia and florida of -- floor or ohio is probably going to be the president. you could actually take it more narrow than the 12. there's a great theory called the blue wall, essentially that there is a blue wall and a wall, and you can take the states for the most part, 38, that these are blue and are red and always

will be. these are the two that flip back and forth, so you can see most of the attention and money pointed in those 12 states. >> another question from the audience -- we have 20-plus debates in this election cycle. the question asked, "i never thought debates made much impact in determining an election. am i wrong in 2011?" do you think you'll of debates has increased this year? >> -- do you think the impact of debates this increase this year? >> i think they did last time. we had 18 primary debates in 2007 and 2008 and john mccain would not have been the nominee without this debate because his campaign was down and out over the summer of 2007. he had been written off by the press. but he started his comeback --

we did not have any money, but he started his comeback in the debates in the debate after labor day in new hampshire and over the course of the next six or debates, he became one of the front runners again. it has allowed unknown candidates like michele bachmann and herman cain to get enough exposure to gain some popularity and support. it has also hurt governor perry, as everyone has noted, that his debate performances have not been up to expectations, and it has established mitt romney's front runner -- frontrunnerchip because he has been articulate and adult on the stage, and it has cemented his stature. >> we are approaching the end of the trail. >> i agree with everything charlie said. if you do not think debates

matter, just ask rick perry. they seem to matter quite a bit. >> there is one thing i have learned how to do in my long career, and that is get off on time. thank you very much. [applause] >> the latest united technologies poll shows that at the bottom line, americans may be in a firing mood. this is our one year out from the election preview -- >> more now from the national journal conference with a panel discussion on the current republican presidential candidates. we will hear from each of their top staffers on a range of issues and stories, including recent sexual harassment allegations against herman cain and his campaign's alleging financial ties to a wisconsin charity. this is an hour. >> and we are back.

thank you guys for setting up the stage. national journal covers the trends impacting america. in 2012, no issues are perhaps more dominant in america than those related to housing, the economy, and the unemployed. we appreciate the provision of the national association of home builders to help highlight these important issues. joining us is the ceo of the home builders, a lifelong advocate for homebuilding and housing. please welcome jerry howard. [applause] >> i want to thank victoria and the national journal for allowing nahb to co-sponsor this very important event.

as victoria manchin, while the economy is clearly the fundamental issue in the forthcoming elections, never before have we seen such a tie to the economy and not just housing -- housing has always been a significant element of our economy, 18% of gdp when running on all cylinders -- but if you go out and travel outside the belt way right now and talk to voters, particularly to a highly motivated large block of voters like baby boomers, most of whom still have their jobs, most of whom own homes -- they are concerned about the fundamental aspect that they had built their nest egg around. they are concerned about the value of their house. i meant -- even in markets where foreclosures not a problem and understanding the 70% of all foreclosures have taken place in only 11 states, there are 38 states out there were four closures not the problem, but declining house values is. clearly, the administration has not taken this problem head on

yet. they have talked about the foreclosure issue but not about the other elements that are causing america's house value to decline and keeping us stock in recessionary times. neither has the congress, unfortunately, and to date, none of the candidates, either republican or the president, have announced a plan that would tackle the overall housing problem. we believe that there cannot be fundamental economic recovery until every american has reason to believe that the asset that they have been encouraged to build their retirement around is going to stabilize, until they stop seeing declines in housing in markets where there should be a demand for housing, until policymakers bring capital back into the marketplace, until policymakers stop making it more difficult for our young people to buy homes, and until housing takes its place back as part of the fundamental fabric of our economy and the fundamental fabric of america's social fabric.

i want to thank you all for being here. i want to thank the national journal for allowing me to have this three-minute commercial, and with that, i would like to introduce the moderators of this panel, abc news political director amy walter and national news political correspondent beth reinhard. thank you very much. [applause] >> we are going to ask everybody to come up and get microphones. gentlemen, please come on up. we are very excited. we will have a great group that will be looking at the gop primary and what is going on on the republican campaign trail. joining us this morning is mark mcintosh, director of policy for the jon huntsman for president campaign. the chief strategist for congresswoman michele bachmann, the chief of staff for herman cain, the national campaign

chairman for congressman ron paul, robert walker, advisor for congressman newt gingrich, the senior strategist and media consultant to senator rick santorum, and the adviser to governor mitt romney. thank you for joining us this morning and thank you, ladies, for leading the discussion.

>> alright, i want to welcome our panelists. we know it is terribly inconvenient to take time out from the campaign right now, so we want to thank you for being here and sharing your innermost secrets with us today appeared it is all off the record, by the way, today. nobody is going to see this. any news you want to break, i will not tell anyone.

we will start with mark. we feel you have not gotten enough attention lately, so we wanted to let you start today. your candidate was a big newsmaker the last 24 hours. when you were interviewed about it, you said that mr. kane had never sexually harassed anyone, case closed. kane, who was in washington yesterday, said the same thing, said he knew of no settlements that had occurred, but his story seemed to change as the day went on, and later that day, he did reveal some details about one of the settlements. my question is -- how do we know that this is the end? can you guarantee that there is not more information forthcoming about his past, or have we heard it all? >> the statement would be that mr. kane has never sexually harassed anybody, and of story.

as the hours go by, it is interesting that we even hear from a radio talk-show host in iowa that the receptionist thought that mr. kane -- cain's comments were inappropriate. if we have to spend every hour of every day responding to these ridiculous accusations, it will take us off our message and our campaign, so my statement will stand -- mr. cain is never sexually harassed anyone, period, the story. >> so this is the end of the story, then? done. no more? >> move on. let's talk about what the american people want to hear about, and that is jobs, jobs, jobs. >> do we think we are going to -- can you guarantee 100% we

will not hear from anybody else? >> what did you not understand about what i just said? >> i do not know. we will go back to the second one. let me move to rob johnson for a second, rick perry campaign. there's a video that has made the viral round of your candidate in new hampshire this weekend. he was very animated. a lot of people are asking -- what was he doing, what was he thinking? this seemed to be a side of him we had not seen before. can you explain what that was? was he just having fun with this, or is there something else we should know about rick perry? >> i think it was a great event. the governor was very comfortable, very passionate and very engaged with the crowd talking about his message of

getting america working again. it was a great event. we have gotten great feedback. he is just a passionate speaker and comfortable in his own skin. >> we are hoping his video goes more viral and mine. >> will he have a cigarette in his next -- >> governor perry will not have a cigarette at his next speech, no. [laughter] >> are you concerned that this on top of the debate performances leads people to the assumption that this is a candidate who gives very different size of himself in different places, that there is not really a consistent rick perry right now? he is getting mocked for it more than embrace for that appearance. >> i think if the mainstream media wants to make issues where there are not issues, and there is no issue.

the governor is a passionate speaker. he is a strong leader. he is an authentic conservative, and has a consistent message of getting america working again. i think a lot of times, the press and the washington establishment tried to make issue where there is no issue, and this is one of those cases. >> we are going to be the next question for the romney campaign. we appreciate you being here. >> i was offended by that add because republicans are supposed to smoke cigars. [laughter] >> there was a poll this past weekend showing your candidate on top. give us one reason why we should not expect governor romney to win the iowa caucus? >> i am from a caucus state.

the two factors that really dominate -- one is ideological motivation. the second is organization. i have to say, i think there are a couple of other candidates that have strong ideologically motivated supporters in that state, and that might trumped everything. governor romney has basically a 50-state campaign for the nomination. needless to say, we would like it to not go 50 states, but we are prepared to go the distance if we have to. we are not putting all our eggs in that basket, but i think he will be competitive, and we will see how it all shakes out. >> as a follow-up, i wanted to go with santorum campaign, john. i am going to start with you because your candidate has probably spent more time in iowa than anyone else. i think he has been 270

counties? >> 99. he has made all of them. >> he has been to all 99, and yet, the two leaders of the iowa poll are the people could have spent the least amount of time in iowa. >> first of all, i want to congratulate the from the people because they were also first in a poll of october 2007, which did not count for much. huckabee was approximately 20 points behind in the october 2007 iowa straw poll. what you see is that it is very early. i think there is probably between now and the iowa straw poll at least 10 debates. i think you'll find a large part of the people are undecided. two people were at the top, and then you have everybody else after that. i think people have to be very careful. if you look at the age straw poll of the people still in the

race, santorum came in third. ideology does matter in a place like iowa. people do care that you have something that you stand for. the think also, feet on the ground. they want to kick the tires, get to know you. i remember the congressman there once sharing with me who he was supporting in the hope he would support them as well, and if they turned and said they had only met them once. that is truly how those people look at it. that is how seriously they do take this. >> to follow up on that, your candidate -- i think she might have won the straw poll -- i have heard that once or twice. and yet, there is somebody like the cane campaign out here saying that retail politics, the old-fashioned way of doing it or the campaigns as we have known them are not as relevant in this

day and age. but there is an evolving in the way that voters are both getting and processing information and thinking about candidates. should we be thinking about it with differently, or is this still going to be michele bachmann, shoe leather, door- knocking campaign? >> i do think ireland's take their responsibility very seriously. the media has to write a lot of up and down stories of the process. i think technology has changed things. you do not have to be in the town to talk to the whole state. i think the internet has changed things quiet. it makes it so every event we do in iowa, a lot of other people in iowa see it. it is not a media market only event, but i do think it comes down to meeting people, talking to people, and the process has really only started. i would say it is starting right now. there are so many holidays between now and the caucus, i do not think people have gotten

their heads around focusing on it all. i think you see the fluctuation in the polls. no one is focused, and i think we're going to have a really exciting 60-something days of people really engaging the process, listening to these debates. a lot of debates are coming forward, but you have to go meet folks when they start focusing, and i think that are starting to focus now. >> you guys are 100% committed to winning iowa? >> we are in iowa and a lot. >> do you have to win iowa? >> i think we have to do well in iowa. we are campaigning hard. we are a campaign that only started in june, and we are trying to win the caucus to the best of our ability, and that is what we do every day. >> can you continue past i know if you do not win? >> we are positioned in new hampshire, florida. we are not a one-only state. we are announcing our south carolina team today. it is a question we get more

than others, but we are positioned in all those states and planning on winning the mall. in robert walker. during the same question your way. >> i think that newt is certainly moving forward. the campaign now has momentum. i think we are in a position to do quite well in iowa, and i think his campaign is also showing strength in new hampshire and south carolina and a while, you know, obviously, the campaign would like to win those states, but i think finishing strongly in those states will put him in a very good position. i think what is happening is that a lot of people in the country are beginning to look at the whole field and trying to decide who are the people who can make it all the way through. i think about the great horse secretariat that some have read the book about and seen the movie and how he started at the beginning of the triple crown but true grit and determination

made it to win all three. this race is kind of a triple crown race. it starts with the media campaign that is on now and will move to the early primaries, and the primary season and then finally to the general election. i think there are a lot of people looking at the general election and asking why they want on the stage with president obama defending our values, and more and more, gingrich is looking like the person that people would like to have there. if he does well, does strongly in these early primaries, i think he stands a very good chance of being one of the two candidates that gets into the later going. i also agree that it is a different kind of campaign this year, that social networking, twitter, a lot of these kinds of things are beginning to have an impact on voters because they view a personal relationship with a candidate even though they may not have shaken their

hand, and i think that will impact new hampshire. i think it will impact iowa, and i think it will play a role throughout the campaign season in a way that it has never done before. >> and the debates have also played a key role. >> sure. newt has done well in the debates, and that is why the question is now coming up, and i think newt has proven himself to be a person who is capable of being on the stage and winning those debates. >> i just want to look at you for one second out that i am on the issues debates. we know that earlier in -- i guess it was last week, the harry campaign -- the rick perry campaign, even the governor himself say there were too many debates and he may have to skip some, and a few days later, he comes out and says they are doing all the november debates, many of which are really very

close to each other and will require a great deal of trouble on your part, not particularly convenient. did he get spooked? is that what happened? a lot of folks say the reason he decided to do all those debates is because of the push back he got from people saying he is chicken. >> i think we are the only one on the stage who has committed to all five. >> is anyone else doing all five debates? >> if there is a debate, we are there. we are going to all of them. we have not set >> no to any of them. >> we are doing constant debates. and i do not think there are five debates in this month. i think there are four. >> what is that? >> anyway.

the point is you are doing all those debates. even after you talked about maybe not. >> we are going to make the decisions that are the best for our campaign, and we decided to do all the debates in november, and that is the end of the story. there is much ado about nothing here. there is no change. the point is there are too many debates. i think everyone on this role would admit that 18 more debates between now and florida -- i think everyone would agree there are too many. it is out of control from a logistical and time standpoint, but debates are an important part of this process. >> we love debates. then i can you talk about the fact that you are doing very

well in iowa as well? third place. consistently right around 10% 12% in the national polls. do you have a feeling -- is that what is happening? why can we not see more movement, even as candidates have gone up and down, you guys have not been able to take advantage of the wallet ~ year -- the volatility here. >> i think you are seeing steady growth and support. we are building the best organization in iowa and new hampshire. we are also building organizations that i did not think any other campaign except perhaps mitt romney can match in other early caucus states. this is really a race about delegates, and we are positioning ourselves to do well and to win substantial delegates from early caucus states. >> last time you guys stayed in

this thing almost the whole way. >> we will wake up on march 7, and i think we will have a pretty clear picture. is there a republican nominee, or is this going to be a battle as we go forward? >> you think this thing is over by super tuesday? >> could be. could not be. we have seen situations where there could be a nominee. we have also seen where there could be a knock down drag out fight through ever primary through june. >> do you also want to weigh in on how you see the early primary states, how that is going to work? do you see it likely to be pretty quick? do you expect a drawn-out contest because of the way delegates are being allocated this time around? and can someone get past florida without winning the state? >> florida just lost half its delegates. it is still up in the air as to whether it will be winner-take-

all or proportional pure looks like it is leaning toward winner-take-all, but that fight is not over yet. >> i listened to your last panel, and they seemed to think it would be over sooner than early. speaking for our campaign, we probably would like that, but i think there is a greater chance. they thought it could go on a lot longer, and we have a lot of candidates who have some rather fervent support, and republicans have not shown an interest in coalescing early behind a candidate at this point. it seems to me there's a chance that we could have something that goes on quite longer than that. >> i tend to agree with that. i think the early primaries can sort out candidates who do not do well, and candidates who do not do all well can find themselves without resources that even if they want to go on, they would not have the ability to do the kind of travel and the kind of outrage that a campaign

has to do to remain credible, but i think that it is entirely likely that you could end up with two or three candidates in competition that could go on for some time, particularly if it narrows it down to two. i think that is a campaign that could go even into the convention. >> i apologize, i am going to direct one more question your way. this is more for you than for your candidate. the cassette in milwaukee journal sentinel -- "milwaukee journal sentinel" saying rick perry paid for thousands of dollars worth of ipods and champagne. does the campaign reimbursed the charity for that? >> i can tell you we have retained independent outside counsel to take a look at the story and report back to us.

>> this is your candidate. do you know what happened? >> we have retained outside independent counsel -- [laughter] to look at the cassette in milwaukee journal sentinel" story and report back to us -- to look at the "milwaukee journal sentinel" story and report back to us. why don't we talk about the campaign and going forward? >> that is a good point. you have been very on message on this panel. your boss is going on -- which is not as fun for us, but your boss is about to go through a slew of media appearances. will he be giving these same exchanges? is he closing the door today? we saw him talk a lot about -- he could certainly give more detail than you have todaybo