speak to that. guest: manufacturers recognize that the need to have that in place, hiring workers, developing them and retaining them, yes, they do fail and the job is the implementation of that development. host: timber lake, missouri. george, good morning. caller: last i heard, we had something like a $600 billion trade deficit in this country. the theory of comparative advantage, there is a great textbook theory there, but it does not work out in the real world. all countries manipulate currency. if we could just start balanced trade agreements withther countries that we are in agreements with, it seems to me that we have to do that, or we will be faced with endless

deficits. what if a country can produce a wine and cheese cheaper than other countries? china will always defeat us. for they have better regulations. they do what they want, when they wanted. they are a comet -- communist country. we will never be able to compete with them on an even basis. look at the japanese. they are trying to manipulate the yen. all countries do that to protect their own labor force. i do not understand why we would enter into trade agreements that would allow other countries to export more than we do. carrie hines host:? guest -- host: carrie hines bella guest: he had a few key points. really, it is about the enforcement of those trade

agreements. that they must be enforced so that we have an even playing field. host: david, ky. bill, independent. good morning. caller: the word, free trade, is a farce. it should be fair trade the fact that we have an abundance of money in banks from manufacturers for the rich, we should be taxing the rich. going back to the early days of the bush administration, we won the jobs created, but they sat there and did not create any jobs. taxing them to create jobs, so that they would need more money to create these jobs. in other words, if they will love make jobs, let's tax them to make jobs.

guest: i think that what we need to do is find some way to create those jobs. in that, there will be taxes that come out of the salaries of those employees. host: here is a twitter message for our guest, speaking of money and lending. "will they lend money to small businesses close "? -- small businesses -- will the credit unions lend money to small businesses"? guest: a great question. we will have to ask them. host: next caller, good morning. caller: it is the fault of the bush administration. the unemployment rate was 4.5% the majority of the time that he was in office after 9/11. not long

>> we're going live not to the white house rose garden, where president obama is about to make remarks on his jobs plan and executive actions aimed at getting a veterans back to work. if last week, for the senate rejected part of the plan for infrastructure projects. this is live coverage here on c- span and. -- here on c-span. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause]

>> thank you very much, everybody. please be seated. this week, we commemorate veterans day. we honor the service and sacrifice of all who have worn the uniform for the united states of america with honor and distinction. above all, we commit ourselves to serving them as well as they have served us. that is why we are here today. today is a generation of veteran who has already earned a special place in our history over a difficult decade. they have performed heroically and some of the world's most dangerous places. they have done everything we have asked of them. i am honored to have some of these extraordinary americans your at the white house this morning. i am also proud to be joined by some of america's leading veteran service organizations. the american legion, veterans of foreign wars, disabled american veterans, and iraq and

afghanistan veterans of america, as well as members of congress who have historically been extraordinarily supportive of our veterans. we are here today to try to take steps to better serve today's veterans in a rough economy. over the past decade, nearly 3 million service members have transitioned back to civilian life, joining the millions who have served through the decades. as we end the war in iraq and wind down the war in afghanistan, over a million more will join them over the next five years. just think about the skills these veterans of acquired, often at a very young age. think about the leadership they have learned, the cutting edge technology they have mastered, their ability to adapt to changing and unpredictable circumstances you cannot get from a classroom. think about how many have led

others to life-and-death missions by the time they're 25 or 26 years old. this is exactly the kind of leadership and responsibility every american business should be competing to attract. this is the kind of talent we need to compete for the jobs and industries of the future. these are the kinds of americans every company should want to hire. and yet, while our economy has added more than 350,000 private sector jobs just over the past three months, more than 850,000 veterans remain unemployed. too many cannot find a job or the of their tremendous talents. to many military spouses have a hard time finding work after moving from base to base to base. even though the overall unemployment rate ticked down last month, unemployment among veterans of iraq and afghanistan continues to rise. it's not right, it does not make sense, not for our veterans, not

for our families, not for america. we are determined to change that. i have told the story before of based -- of a soldier in the 82nd airborne who served as a combat medic in afghanistan. he saved the lives of their. he earned the bronze star for his actions. but when he returned home, he could not even get a job as a first responder. he had to take class's proposed 9/11 g i bill, class's he probably could have taught, just so he could qualify for the same duties at home he was doing every single day at war. you know what? if you can save a life on the battlefield, you can save a life in an ambulance. if you can't oversee a convoy or millions of dollars of assets in iraq, you can help a business back home manage their supply chain or balance their books. if you can juggle the demands of

raising a family while a loved one is at war, you can juggle the demands of almost any job in america. we ask our men and women in uniform to leave their families and jobs and risk their lives to fight for our country. the last thing they should have to do is fight for a job when they come home. that is why we are here today, to do everything in our power to see to it america's veterans of the opportunities they deserve and have burned. i -- and have earned. i have already directed the federal government to lead by example and hire more veterans. it has hired more than 120,000 so far. a couple of months ago, i challenged private companies to hire or train 100,000 post 9/11 veterans or their spouses by the end of 2013. already, companies have hired more than 12,000 and committed to train or hire 25,000 more over the next two years.

and i want to thank the extraordinary work of my wife, the first lady, as well as dr. jill biden for leading these efforts to support our military families and veterans. nearly two months ago, i sent congress the american jobs act. it was the only jobs plan economists said would boost the economy and put americans work -- but americans to work right now. it was historically kinds of ideas that have been supported by both parties. it was paid for and included two proposals that would have made a big difference for our veterans. the returning is here -- the returning hero tax credits would give businesses a break for each unemployed veteran hired. the wounded warrior tax credit would give businesses an even larger tax break for hiring an unemployed veteran with a disability related to their service in uniform. these veterans service organizations are here today

because they fully support these ideas. unfortunately, we have not yet seen progress in congress. senate republicans have so far chosen to block these bills and proposals. since then, they have blocked a jobs bill that would keep teachers in the classroom and first responders on the street and blocked a jobs bill last week that would have put hundreds of thousands of construction orders back to work rebuilding america, despite the fact that more than 75% of america supported this bill. not one has stepped up on the other side of the aisle to say this is the right thing to do. they have had three chances to do the right thing and three times they have said no. i believe it is time they said yes to taking action would boost the economy overall. the overall economy has an impact on veterans. it's easier for veterans to find jobs for the economy is -- when the economy is growing rapidly and unemployment is dropping. it is important for us to

remember we are all in this together. it is time we started acting like it. bold action from congress is ultimately the only way we're going to put hundreds of thousands of americans back to work and rebuild an economy where everyone who works hard has a chance to get ahead. so i am going to keep pushing these senators to vote on common-sense ways to create jobs members of both parties have supported before. but what i have also said is that i'm going to do everything in my power as the head of the executive branch to act on behalf of the american people, with or without congress. we cannot wait for congress to do its job. as commander-in-chief, i will not wait, nor will i let politics get in the way to make sure that trends share in the opportunities they help to defend. two weeks ago i announced a new initiative to help train veterans get jobs in the american medical community.

today, we are announcing three new initiatives to help america's returning heroes get jobs that meet their talents. first, we are delivering on the expanded jobs search services i promised our post-9/11 veterans three months ago. starting today, post-9/11 veterans looking for work can download we are calling the veterans gold card, which gives you a to six months of personalized job search services a career centers across the country. second, we are launching an easy-to-use online tool called "my next move" for veterans which allows veterans to enter information about their skills in the field and match it with a civilian careers that put that experience to use. third, we're connecting unemployed veterans to job openings. we have partners with -- we have partnered with leading job search companies to create

veteran's job bank, where employers can tag jobs for veterans using major search engines. already, more than 500,000 job openings have been tagged thanks to a company called simply hired and companies like monster and linkedin are helping employers participate. all three of these are up and running right now. visit the white house website to find each one. i'm asking these veterans service organizations to spread the word. connecting veterans to the jobs they deserve is not just the right thing for veterans, it the right thing for america. there's still more we can do we can encourage more businesses to hire veterans. this week, congress will have another chance to do the right thing. they will get to vote on those tax breaks i proposed back in september for businesses to hire veterans. members of congress will get to

say whether or not think it's a good idea to give companies an incentive, an additional incentive, to hire the men and women who have risked their lives for our country. when i first proposed this idea, somebody remember the joint session of congress, people stood and applauded on both sides of the aisle when i announced this bill. it was one of the few times both sides stood up. when these ideas come up for a vote this week, when the tv cameras are not necessarily on each one of them, i expect both sides of the aisle to stand up for our veterans and vote in the affirmative. there is no good reason to oppose this bill. not one. our veterans did their jobs. it is time for congress to do theirs. it is time for them to put country before party, put our veterans back to work, and pass this element of the jobs package that benefits our veterans and give businesses an incentive to hire veterans.

standing up for our veterans is not a democratic republican and responsibility, it's an american responsibility. it is an obligation of every citizen who enjoys the freedom these heroes defend and it's time for us to meet those obligations right now. as commander-in-chief, i want all of our veterans to know we are forever grateful for your service and your sacrifice. just as you have fought for us, we will keep fighting for you. more jobs, more security, for the opportunity to keep your family's strong and keep america competitive in the 21st century. in other words, we're going to keep on fighting just as you get to show the world why the united states of america is still the greatest nation on earth. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you, god bless the guided states of america. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] be >> president obama announcing initiatives to encourage companies to hire the nation's veterans. the senate will vote on it this week. this is all ahead of the approaching veterans day holiday this coming friday. tax credits to companies hiring veterans are part of it as well as a new v.a. website where x service members can look for jobs and companies can post jobs for veterans. if you missed what the president had to say this morning, you can see at any time at the c-span the library at c-span.org.

>> coming up at 5:00 eastern, we will bring you live coverage of former secretary of state, madeleine albright, leading a discussion on the arabs spring and transition very arab countries are in right now. activists from libya, yemen and of grain will join the discussion. coming up at 8:00, the cbs and you -- cbs news chief foreign correspondent talks about covering foreign conflicts. and the u.s. senate meets at 2:00 for speeches. 5:00, it will turn to debate on ending a 3% automatic withholding from federal contractors to make sure they pay their taxes. that's live on c-span2.

>> almost every other developed country in the world, you pay taxes on the money make and taxes to make it. the united states taxes or global income, so your being taxed twice for your income. it literally forces them to leave their money overseas. >> tonight, the consumer electronics association head on recommendations from its members to the deficit reduction committee. >> we need some economic stimulus -- we could have this money come back into the economy at a lower tax rate and even tied to job for capital investment, and that makes sense. that's tonight at 8:00 on c- span2. >> republican presidential candidates, mitt romney address the american for prosperity foundation. he outlined his plan to cut spending and increasing the

social security eligibility age. this is about 25 minutes. >> the president has been travelling across the country to get people to support his new half a trillion dollars stimulus bill. he keeps telling people we cannot wait, to which i say, yes we can. upon taking office, this is administration has said they don't want to let a good crisis go to waste. we've learned they cannot and

one. our country has been running a deficit for 36 months. just last week 3600 out -- 36,000 americans filed for unemployment claims. we know that's not the best america can do, it's the best this administration can do. we're going to do a lot better. [applause] over the last 33 months, president obama has offered a number of plans for getting the economy going. the problem is most of his proposals the are based on one idea -- more spending and borrowing. today, government borrows 36 cents of every dollar it spends. if we stay on that course, we will face tomorrow what greece, italy and spain are facing today. there is no nation big enough to bail us out. it took 43 presidents over 200 years to accumulate $6.3 trillion in debt. president obama is on track to do that in just one term.

his fundamental error is he believes government creates jobs. he is wrong. he puts his faith in government. i put my faith in people. [applause] this is why i am committed to making government simpler, smaller, and smarter. it's not only good for the economy, it is a moral imperative. we cannot with moral conscience barrault trillions of dollars that can only be repaid by our children. we cannot so weaken our economic foundation that we jeopardize our ability to preserve freedom. some are going to argue fiscal responsibility as heartless and immoral. no, what is heartless is to imperil our children and what is a moral is to imperil the strength of a nation founded

under god and preserved by his hand. [applause] this is a pivotal moment in the history of the country. we will either be led by men and women who care only for the present, who promise more and more for less and less or who ignore the tightening noose of debt. or we will be led by those who believe deficits matter and we have the courage to act with fiscal responsibility. when i became governor of massachusetts, that was 2003. our state budget was out of control. my legislature was 85% democratic. some thought we could solve our problems is raising taxes or borrowing more money. i said no. even with the most democratic legislature in the nation, we did not just slow down the growth of spending, we actually cut spending.

we turned a $3 billion budget shortfall and to a $2 billion rainy day fund. i learned how to balance budgets in the business sector. in the private sector, you have no choice about balancing budgets. you either balance your budget or you go broke. you spend every dollar like it is your own, because it is. someone should have told that to solyndra. the federal government gave them a $535 million startup loan to build a factory in california. the footprint of their facility covered five baseball fields. they have robots that whistled disney songs. i'm not kidding. they had what was described as spa-like showers that had displays of told to the temperature was. the company headquarters was

called the taj mahal of buildings. that is how the government starts a business. let me compare that with staples. our headquarters was located in the back of an empty food warehouse. we got used office furniture, old naugahyde chairs. you had to be an athlete to get out of them once he sat in them. every penny we had went into selling and attracting customers. that's the difference between the private sector and government -- fiscal responsibility. i took that business experience and brought it to the olympics. i came there at a time when the games were in crisis. we had about a eighth $370 million deficit. some people said the games were going to fail. the first thing we did was to change the culture. we start with small but symbolic gestures.

we stopped renting a big fancy conference room and decided to charge our board members for their meals. $1 for a can of coke, $1 for a slice of pizza. we kept the budget for things like decorations and motivational speakers. we wanted the entire organization to know every penny mattered. i used common-sense principles like that that i relied on some times in the private sector to come up with $98 million in immediate budget cuts. when all was said and done, the olympics we helped put together were some of the most successful in olympics history. instead of a deficit of $370 million, we produced $100 million for the endowment fund. [applause] so, when business, in the

olympics, in massachusetts, i learned how to eliminate deficits and produce results. when i get into the white house, hopefully, no one will need to teach me how to balance budgets. i have been doing it for 35 years. now is the time to level with the american people about what it will take to cut spending and balance our budget. to present its goals and present a credible plan. it's going to require tough choices. many believe it cannot be done. i believe in the american people. when this nation calls, americans the liver. over the last 33 months, president obama has grown federal spending to 24% of our total economy. 24% of gdp. as president, i pledge to reduce spending to 20% of gdp by the end of my first term.

[applause] then i will cap at that level. further, will put us on a pass to a balanced budget and a constitutional amendment requires the government to spend only what it earns. [applause] to reach that 20% goal, we are going to need to find by 2016, about $500 billion a year in annual savings. upon taking office, and immediately going to cut discretionary spending and submit a budget that returns spending levels to the pre-obama level. [applause] let me know by the way, as i said a few weeks ago, i will reverse president obama's massive defense cuts. [applause]

any savings we define in the core defense budget, we will redirect to rebuild our navy and air force at active-duty soldiers and sailors. [applause] and to provide the care our veterans so richly deserves. [applause] the world has not become a less dangerous place. we must preserve our commitment to a military that is so strong no nation would never think of testing it. [applause] my road map to a smaller, simpler government combines three separate approaches. first, eliminate and cut programs. that will start -- [applause]

that will star with the easiest cut of all -- i will repeal obama care. [applause] i should have started with that line. [laughter] obama care is bad law, bad policy, and when i'm president, that bad news will be over. [applause] by the way, there are a lot of other federal programs we should either dramatically scale back or cut out entirely. [applause] for each program, i'm going to

look at them one by one, i'm going to ask this question -- is the program so critical, so essential, that we should borrow money from china to pay for it? [applause] for example, i like amtrak. but i'm not willing to borrow $1.6 billion a year from china to pay for it. [applause] i really like the national endowment for the arts, the national endowment for the humanities, the corporation for public broadcasting, but i will not borrow almost a billion dollars a year from china to pay for them. [applause] and then there is foreign-aid. do you know that we give $27 million a year, against which country -- to china. i will stop sending money to any

country that can take care of itself and no foreign aid will go to countries that opposed american interests. [applause] and you know well that we spend $300 million a year on groups like planned parenthood to provide abortions or abortion- related services. it's a long time passed for that to be over. [applause] so the first approach, we're going to limit or cut programs that are not absolutely essential, even when we like them. second, we're going to return numerous federal programs to the states. [applause] that's because innovation and cost management and reduction of fraud and abuse can far exceed the state level what happens in

washington. medicaid is a prime example. we need to turn medicaid back to the states to allow them at the state level to craft healthcare solutions that suit their own citizens best. by limiting the growth of medicaid funding cpi, we will save $100 billion a year by 2016. [applause] today, there are nine separate federal agencies that run 47 different federal work force training programs at a cost of $18 billion a year. just a imagine how much is being spent on overhead. i'm going to send those work force training dollars back to the states, empower the states to retrain workers in ways that fit the aids -- fit the needs of their respective economies and we will save billions of dollars in the process.

finally, in addition to cutting programs and eliminating programs and sending programs back to the states where they belong, there is a third approach to reining in federal spending. that is to impose a far greater standards of productivity and efficiency on government itself. just like it's done in business every other day. let me give you an example. this was amazing to me -- just how out of control government can become when it doesn't have competition or people who understand how to exact efficiency and productivity. i was speaking with the former secretary of the navy. he told me during the second world war, we commissioned about 1000 ships the year and the navy purchasing department that year, which they called the bureau of ships, had 1000 employees. by the time he was secretary of the navy under ronald reagan, he said we commissioned 17 ships a year and navy purchasing a grown

to 4000 people. today, we will commission nine ships a year and purchasing has grown to 24,000 people. a business like that would be out of business. we have got to cut the size of the federal workforce. [applause] on president obama's watch, we've added 140,000 workers to the federal work force. the american people are increasingly working to support the government. it ought to be the other way around. i will reduce the federal payroll by at least 10%, saving $3.5 billion a year. [applause] of course, we can save additional billions by cutting extraneous federal contractors. but is not just the size of the

federal workforce and contractors, it is their cost. since president obama took office, the number of federal workers who make over $150,000 a year has more than doubled. i insist we limit the salaries and benefits of public workers to those which exist in the private sector. [applause] public servants should not get a better deal than the taxpayers or four. -- the taxpayers a work force. by linking government pay with private-sector pay, we will save as much as $47 billion a year. [applause] there are still other ways to make the government more efficient and effective. we have got to attack the rampant fraud that exists in numerous government programs. one of the ways i will do that is by enacting far stiffer

penalties for those who steal from taxpayers. cutting improper payments in half could save as much as $60 billion a year. we could save nearly $11 billion a year by repealing a political give away the upper tax unions from competition and drive up the cost of every government contract and project. it is time to repeal davis- bacon. [applause] one of the things as an old business guy i am looking forward to is finding savings by combining certain government agencies and departments. for example, it makes very little sense -- the trade policies and programs are administered by some of the offices it in some departments. today, trade matters are housed in the office of the u.s. trade

representative, the department of commerce, the international trade commission, the international trade administration, the department of the homeland's security, and the department of treasury. by the way, guess who gathers all the trade data? none of the above. is the census bureau. too many chefs not only spoil the broth, they make it inevitable -- and make it an edible and prohibitively expensive. we have got to combine federal agencies. [applause] let me reiterate. i'm going to make the federal government simpler, smaller, and smarter by eliminating programs, by sending programs back to states, and by making the federal government itself more productive. at the same time, i will provide for the national defence, enforce our laws, preserve our safety net, and honor all our promises to our elderly. this is the right course for a

moral nation. deficits do in fact matter. a matter of want to convince entrepreneurs to start a business. they matter if they want employers to start hiring. they matter if america is going to avoid the shoals of economic calamity. stay matter of america is going to remain the shining city on the hill. to those who say deficits don't matter, to those who spend and borrow to win the prize of a short sighted, we assert you are in the wrong and we are in the right. my dad used to say the pursuit of the difficult makes men strong. our next president is going to face difficult challenges. among these will be the future of social security and medicare. in their current form, these programs will go bankrupt some point. i know that, you know that, even our friends in the opposition party that. the difference is i will be

honest about strengthening and preserving them. and they won't. president obama has failed to articulate a single serious idea to save social security. i believe we can save the social security with a few common-sense reforms. first, let's underscore this -- there will be no change in social security for retirees or those near retirement. no change. second, for the next generation of retirees, we should slowly raise the retirement age. finally, for the next generation of retirees, we should slow the growth of benefits for those that have higher incomes. while president obama has been silent on social security, his agenda for medicare has been a disaster. he is the only president in modern history who has cut medicare for seniors. don't forget, it was president obama the cut $500 billion from

medicare, not to preserve it, not to sustain it, but to pay for his vaunted obama care. he but the future of medicare in the hands of 15 an unelected bureaucrats. those bureaucrats have the problem -- have the power to change medicare and put in place further cuts without congressional approval. even if the cuts overturn the law previously passed by congress. president obama's so-called medicare reforms could lead to rationing of care, or denial of care for seniors on medicare. we must not let the public learn or forget who it was that cut medicare. it was president obama, not republicans. [applause] unlike president obama, our next president is going to protect medicare, improve the program and keep sustainable for generations to come. there's several principles that will guide my effort in that

regard. first: just like the social security, medicare should not change for anyone who is in the program or who is about to be a net. we should honor the commitments we have made to our seniors. second, tax bites are not the solution. we could not -- tax hikes are not the solution. we cannot tax our way out even if it wanted to. tamara's seniors should have the freedom to choose with their health care coverage look like. younger america -- and americans should have the choice between traditional medicare and other private health-care plans that provide at least the same level of benefits. competition will lower costs and increase the quality of health care. that is the answer for medicare. the federal government, by the way will help seniors pay for the option they choose with a level of support that insures all can obtain the coverage they need. those with lower incomes will

receive more generous assistance. beneficiaries can choose to keep the savings or pay more for a costlier plan. finally, as with social security, the eligibility age should slowly increase to keep pace with increases in longevity. those ideas will give tomorrows seniors the same kind of choices americans have in health care today. the future of medicare should be marked by competition, by choice, and by innovation rather than by bureaucracy, stagnation, and bankruptcy. [applause] our path for the future of social security and medicare is honesty and security. there is demagoguery and dissension and that is one more reason they will lose. -- there's is demagoguery and

deception and that is one more reason they will lose. the plan i propose to make government simpler, smaller and smarter represents the biggest fundamental change to the federal government in modern history. it is a change we're going to have to make if the words of full faith and credit of the united states are to mean anything at all. we are not the first people to come to this realization. and we will not be the first people to be criticized for bleeding responsibility is a virtue. president reagan shared our conviction in his first inaugural address. he said this -- "it's not my intention to do away with government. it is rather to make it work with us, not over us, stand by our side, not ride on our back. government can then must provide opportunity, not to smother it. foster productivity, not stifle. the task before us is to reaffirm our conviction in the

police and values that unite us and the challenges and opportunities, and in the victory that surely awaits us. thank you for all you do. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪ >> at 5:00 eastern here on c- span, we will have live coverage as former secretary of state, madeleine albright, lead to discussions on the arab spring and transition rate -- transition many arab countries are in. activists from libya, yemen, and bahrain will join the discussion. coming up at 8:00, the cbs news

chief correspondent, lara logan talks about covering foreign conflicts. that's at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. >> i want you all to know, those of you wanted me to run so badly and those who were terribly disappointed, that i am doing the right thing. >> 1984 finds the united states in the strongest position in years, to establish a realistic working relationship with the soviet union. >> with every program since 1987, the c-span video library is the definitive online source for public affairs. now there is a new way to access our programming -- you can download copies of each program for 99 cents. you can put it on any portable

audio device and listen to it when you want and where you want. >> are we return now to the american veterans center for remarks by general richard myers. he spoke to a group of midshipmen and cadets about the qualities important in leadership and shared some stories from his long military career. he also discusses his most difficult decision as the chair of the joint chiefs. from the u.s. navy memorial, this is about 45 minutes. >> we're going to talk today about leadership and some thoughts.

first, i thought it might be useful for the young folks in the audience to hear my way into the military. i do not know steve's sorry or a lot of those who have served your before. -- steve's story or a lot of those who serve there before. i went to kansas state university where, when you got there in enrollment, rotc was mandatory. they had a green line and a blue line. green line for the army, blueline for the air force. i was very unsophisticated in how i made my choice. i had to pick a line and sign up for one of them. i said what to war or fly to war. flying sounded better. so i picked the air force line and went into rotc. i was pretty enthusiastic and had a great capt., just back from england. he used to play these songs were there were singing fighter pilot

songs, you could play in front of young students, decent songs. they talked about flying the f 100 in england and what a thrill that was and what comradery there was. i said this really sounds interesting. i did not know anything about it. it was all new to me. this really sounds interesting. my senior year, they said you are pilot-qualified. we're going to let you go through the flight into a preprogram, which was 36 hours in a cessna 150, just enough to get a private lessons if you did not screw up to bat. the first time i broke ground on that little cessna, any private pilots in this small group of young folks? the first time i broke ground in an airplane with the instructor in manhattan, kan., the winds

and beating us around like a kite. i said this is cool. yet this great perspective looking down. i liked the smell. i liked the sound. i liked everything about it. i like to the motion. for the first time in life, i had direction. that took me through senior rotc and my commission into the air force. i loved pilot training. a lot of people were struggling with the academics, struggling to to make it through their check rides and so forth. i thought was a blast. i did not think was particularly hard, though i worked really hard at it. i'll love it so much that i used to run up and down the flight line, had a trolly that ran up and down the flight line. just the smell of the jet fuel being burned. at the air force base, i parked

close to the runway to watch crop dusters do their work. i had a few extra minutes, so i stopped to watch the crop dusters. i had a white chevrolet bel air, one of the cheapest car should buy in those days. it had little yellow spots after that and it never washed off. i was thrilled to see the crop duster running by it, doing his thing or her thing so close to the ground. i loved everything about flying. i go into the air force, through a pilot training and our commitment that was for years. you could then exit stage left if you were so inclined. but i stayed. what i would like to talk to you about is why i stayed. i stayed for 40 years. the plan was five years and in getty's something else. but i stayed because of the military culture i found. steve has talked about some of

that and i'm going to pick out a couple of things. what is the notion of integrity? it counts in everything we do in life. it really counts in the military. if you lose -- if you are thought to be a personal blow integrity, your chances of a successful military career are over then. you get one chance and you better not blow it what it comes to integrity. i will talk more about that in just a minute. it was also an organization that did not tolerate discrimination. it did not matter what religion, what race, where you at school -- i went to kansas state university, the same place roger locker went to school. it did not matter where you got your commissions. you were welcomed. third, it was a meritocracy. the matter where you went to school or whatever, you would succeed it based on the effort you put in to your career.

the same way steve rose to be an ace, the effort you put into it, the preparedness, all those other things steve talked about. i liked the fact there was always this sense in those early years that i was serving something a lot bigger than myself. that made me feel good. maybe it does not make everybody feel good, but it's really good when you think this is not all about you. this is about our country, our air force and that our wing and our squadron and my flight mates. that's what this is about. you are part of this thing that is serving them, which is so much better than thinking about serving yourself some how. finally, i liked the notion of teamwork. steve talked about that. there's nothing good that happens in this world without teamwork, particularly in the

military. you count on everyone in that team to be pulling the harness or you won't get the job done. steve talked about the challenges we face in leadership. you ought to talk about leadership for tomorrow, so if i had a topic, that would be it. but the secret is, the leadership for tomorrow is the same characteristics leadership has always had. you think about the challenges, whether they are environmental or physical challenges, born of economic challenges or security challenges, which have not gone away, although a lot of people would like to dismiss them. we have got serious challenges in our world today. not just in the united states, but around the world. there are several traits basic to the character of those who

will be good leaders we can talk about just a little bit. first, i will go back to integrity. that is why i stayed in their air force. doing what you say you're going to do, being trustworthy. i can imagine the flight briefings. i've been in some and i know steve has been in some. you have four ships or 90 airplane did you expect everyone to do what they're supposed to do. if you set the rate hours of flight making sure your sweeping the skies ahead of you, you cannot have a lone ranger in their deciding all the activity is down here, they told me to search high, i'm going to searched low. we have had people split out of flights to get chased down aircraft, just to be heroes. that is not integrity. and jeopardize, of course, the

flight integrity, perhaps even the mission. certainly, people can get hurt for that sort of thing. an example of integrity at the presidential level, a story that does not get a lot of talked -- the day after 9/11, 2001, we're at the white house and the situation room, having the first security council meeting after 9/11. we are in the part of the white house, the cold war part of it -- we went through some big faults. i guess you guys lowering case of a nuclear attack. it's not going to protect you from a nuclear attack. we have all of this filtered air and stuff. we're having our first national security council meeting. we knew who perpetrated the act. we did not know what we're going to do about it. we're just talking about some general themes. we were having a wide ranging

discussion. at the end, he said something that that was really profound. this is the part about integrity. he says my guess is to deal with this threat we witnessed on 9/11, we're going to have to do some things that are unpopular with the american public and others. he says but we are going to have to do what we think is right. if that means this is a one-term administration, then so be it. i wrote it down because i thought here is the president saying i'm going to do the right thing. it's a one-term administration because what i do is unpopular, so be it. we will have given a shot to keep america safer. you may agree or disagree with president bush's policies. that's not the point here. the point is he was doing things he thought were the right things to do. that is all we can ask of any of us, to say and do what you think

is the right thing to do. that is, if you will, one piece of integrity. my guess is your integrity -- i brought a report card home from kansas state. we know you are not cheating. otherwise you are a bad shooter. [laughter] but you have all been tempted. your integrity has been tested many, many times. i will give you another story where mine was tested. fortunately i picked the right path. we had a process to choose folks to go to the weapons school at the air force base, a process down in san antonio, texas. i went down to weapons school and i bought this is going to be a great time.

i'm going to get there early, and going to get my instructions, and ago and have some beer and mexican food. this is going to be really nice. if the person running the personnel system at times as i have a letter for you that you might want to read. it was from a three-star general, one of the numbered air force commanders who owned half the fighter aircraft in the united states. my goal after coming out of weapons school was to be in the good graces of one of these three-star commanders so i be a wing commander. i wasn't thinking too hard about it but the thought crossed my mind as i opened this letter. in the letter, it said might number one choice to go to weapons school is so and so. please ensure he comes out on a list of the selectees. there were a couple of things wrong with this.

one is the letter was not allowed. there is no external influence allowed in the board process for school selection. it used to be that way, it had changed. it was old school -- he was old school, but it had changed as he worked his way up the ranks. the second thing wrong with it was this was not the wing commander -- i called the wing commander and said three-star, your boss says this is the number one guy your base. he saysbut he is about number f. he is a great guy but not quite ready yet. what to do? i call my wing commander back. i said that i have got this conflict. there's somebody trying to influence this board process inappropriately. happens to be a three-star general that we all know. he says, well, you have got to do it. you know, he is the big guy. i do not think that was very helpful.

i said, well, thank you very much, sir, like i was going to do it, and i hung up the phone. my decision was to lead the board process run. maybe by the grace of god this fellow would be are at the list, because we all scored the records, and i would just be one of those people. but he did not make it. because he did not have the experience. he was not quite mature enough. the commonly commander, and i said, well, he did not make it. marine commanders says, my goodness. he says, well, i'd better call the three-star. i said, no, i did it. i will call the three-star. this is somebody i did not know very well. i knew him a little bit. i ranged a discussion with the three-star air force commander. i am a colonel. this is a big guy. at that time, i did not know many generals. this is a three-star general.

i called him up and explained to them -- and about three seconds to explain what happened. then i listened for about 15 minutes. the last part of his comment was, well, i guess being a three-star in the u.s. air force does not mean very much anymore. i thought, wow. i called my wife and said hope you're teaching certificate as of today. because of will be out of work here shortly. it actually worked out ok. doing the right thing -- it always works out. you have to be true to yourself. that was my last official act, so be it. it turned out it was not, even though i thought it could have been. but usually there are people that will be on the side of doing the right thing. so my wing commander told my two-star center commander box to jump right in and said that three-star is rahm. the and they had the fight. the whole point is, integrity really counts. you have got to do with you think is right.

your intuition, by the way, is usually pretty close to being right. intuition is an important thing. you have all had that input from your mom, dad, church, score, academies, whatever. you have got pretty good intuition. the second thing about the character of the kind of leaders we need for tomorrow would be this sense of selfless service. server leader. you hear that a lot today, not only in the business world, but throughout the military world. selfless service. let me give you a story of a young man that was i think heading in the wrong direction in that regard. i am the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, going to a meeting with the chiefs. i did not allow much time between my office and the meeting room, because it was not very far.

my secretary says on the way out that there is a young man here from one of the academies. was not the air force academy. from one of the academies, was pretty close to here actually. they had been in the building for a while, and he said that he has been trying to see you and is looking outside your office, and he is going to attack you on the way down to the meeting. i said, , i hope i can help him. as i come out of my office and get in the hall, i have just that one question for you, he said. i said, good, i can probably handle one question. what is it? he says, what does it take to become chairman of the joint chiefs of staff? selfless service -- mallets think about this for a minute. i sit, you know, this is about a two hour or three-hour conversation, young men. we have got to get you centered

here. i was late to the meeting with the joint chiefs of staff, which is in the always hated to do. but i felt he deserved about 50 minutes of discussion about the question he just asked. my question back to him was, this is for young folks, first of all, how can anybody tell you what it takes, you know? being an average student from kansas state, going through rotc, fly, four years under your chairman. i mean, what is the story? i said, are you the number one mentioned at the military training at the naval academy? no, no, sir. academically, you're probably number one? no, no, sir. athletically, what did you do? are you one of the stars on one of the teams? no, sir. i said, my point is, what you should be focusing on are those things right now. you might not be number one, and that is not really important. what is important is that you commit to what you're doing right now, and you try to be the

best at that. and if you are, if you have the leadership, somebody will recognize you, and you will start to be given increased responsibility. but you do not start up by thinking, ok, what is the formula to be chairman of the joint chiefs of staff? that is not the kind of leader you want to be. that is not a selfless leadership. that is very selfish leadership. you just have got to do the best of your doing. i mean, you can shirt -- i am sure, steve, probably, although you are a hero or early, but i bet you have experienced this. i have been giving assignments like it is the last assignment on earth. but i threw myself into it thinking, ok, this is what the air force wants me to do. i just came out of squadron commander. ght was pretty good. we had a great squadron, a great camaraderie. i thought it was the best. but the other three squadron commanders would argue that point, but i knew for sure we

were the best. one of the squadron commanders got promoted to colonel. he is given an f-15 assistant director of operations job. i was sent to personnel plans and programs at headquarters of the air command. personnel plans and programs. you did not even know what that is. nobody in this room knows what that is, my guess. it is a really important function. i got there and had the best bosses i ever had in my life. i learn more about the air force and how to take care of people in that job. and things turned out ok, obviously but i thought, i do not know who i really made mad. but it goes back to the idea of just doing the best at what you can do. so we talk about integrity. we talked about selfless service. let's talk about service of the bigger than yourself and this notion. we got a lot of folks in blue uniforms in here.

hopefully you know this story. if you do not, i will remind you. some folks in gray uniforms that i know this story. this is old army history. great army history. everybody know who billy mitchell was? billy mitchell, a heretic. this man who had this notion that airpower would be really dominant on the battlefield this was in the 1920's and early 1930's. there were a lot in the army that did not appreciate army general michel espousing airpower and how it can make a difference. so he was going to be court- martialed, as we all know, and he was court-martialed. he went to a man named arnold. he said, major arnold, if you support mitchell in his court- martial as a character reference, then we're going to take a break -- take away your school at fort leavenworth in kansas. the only way to get anywhere

iwas to go to school at fort leavenworth. that was pretty much saying your career is over. we're going to send you to fort riley, kansas. the subtext there is that nobody will ever hear from you again, thank you very much. so arnold testified on behalf of his very good friend of billy mitchell. the army did exactly what they said they were going to do. they took away his school's lot of incentive to fort riley. while he was at fort riley, some folks from new york show up. these folks said, hey, we're starting this new airline and we would like you to be part of it. not as a private but as a president. we're going to call this new airline pan-american airways. now, if i had been in arnold, it would have been an easy choice. i am banished in at fort riley, not going anywhere, i would have immediately moved to new york had been the president of pan american airways. that is easy. arnold, when you think about serving something bigger than

yourself, he says, no, i think there's more i can contribute to my country. he is a major. he has been put out to pasture literally. fort riley at the time was still the center of the army calvary school and so forth. he was put out to pasture. probably became a very good writer. what happened? you know the rest of the story. he commended all army air forces in world war ii and is one of the handful of officers this country has ever promoted to five-star rank. so he did not go to new york. he said that i have got something else i can do for my country. that is probably an extreme example, but it is what i keep in the back of my mind when people talk about selfless service and service of the bigger than yourself. arnold has to come up on your radar screen pretty fast. i think what i will do, when you talk about what kind of leadership we need tomorrow, we

need really strong leadership. very strong leadership. strong in character. i give the three characteristics of a but there are a lot of other things we need to think about. but integrity and selfless service and service of the bigger than yourself and i think, pretty clearly if you read the cloth of our nation, as a lot of you are wearing or are either junior rotc or in the academy, i think that is what we count on. i know you got a good dose of it. i know you do it in the air force academy. i have been a part of some of those programs. i know they do at west point. i assume rotc programs as well. you have leadership opportunities, and you get tested every day of those sorts of things. there'll be more tests. that is how life is. what i would like to do with whatever time i have remaining is open it up for questions on this subject or anything you want to talk about. i am going to stand over here

and try to use my command voice from the rotc from marching around the battlefields. >> when you were chairman, was the most influential decision had to make? >> well, i think -- actually, i think it is a series of things. when you commit, when your recommendation is to commit our own forces to war, that has got to be the most difficult decision. as we have been in war for 10 years, and i was there for the first four, the difficult part is -- i mean, assigning the orders. after the secretary approved the orders, the orders and send people off to war. and there are people who were severely injured. not to mention the parents, siblings that you talked with those who have been killed.

i mean, that is just the reality of the magnitude of the job. when you're committing these wonderful men and women, you cannot say young, because there were guardsmen and reservists in iraq and afghanistan that were older than i was at the time. hard to believe, but there were those people, and they were doing all the physical stuff, everything, at 60. pretty impressive stuff. so that is the hardest thing to do. not just signed the order, but then live with the result of having put your signature on a piece of paper. not easy stuff. >> u.s. coast guard academy and a proud kansan. as a joint chiefs of staff, you're in charge of all the military branches. how does enter operations between the branches, how has that approved in past years, and also the interaction with other

government agencies, how has that helped missions? >> that is a media question. first of all, where are you from my inquest -- kansas? >> fort riley, sir. [laughter] >> fort riley. you understand, i did not bad mouth forthrightly. [laughter] i still have a relationship with the university, and that has to do with forthrightly. they have a close relationship. as it should be, and they draw on each other's strengths. anyway, a very symbiotic relationship. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff does not come into the betty. i did not command one person. there was not one person that i could impose any uniform court of military justice on, not one. they all belong to the services. i was sometimes introduced as

the commander of all u.s. forces. in afghanistan, i was introduced as the number one warlord of the world. [laughter] you are an adviser, so everything you do is sort of threw influence. but it is powerful, because were the principal military adviser, but the law goes on to say if you differ from it -- it your opinion differs from the service teams, you are obliged to tell the president or secretary but as ever does. one of my big roles was to try to ensure that the joint chiefs of staff was well-informed and we debated the policy issues of the day to the extent where we could all come to consensus. unfortunately and the four years i was chairman, i never had to say, mr. president, here is my view, but, by the way, somebody else does not agree, and here is their view. we always would find common ground. and it was not hard. there were a couple of things that helped.

not just my terrific leadership capability. we have budgets that were going up. so there is not a lot of service squabbling, and we were a nation of four. we were focused on that. and as people probably know, the coast guard is not part of the joint chiefs of staff, but i had an open invitation to become gadahn, the two are the acerbate, the coast guard to come to meetings. they insisted he be there for some meetings. because we all had to work hand-in-glove. i think for the time that steve and i came to the air force, which was essentially about the same time, what we saw in vietnam was not in very joint in terms of service interoperability operations. there were a lot of different air forces waging war on north vietnam, and we all had our own

places we flu. that is all nice and everything, but you cannot call it a very unified effort. even near fourth, i mean, we had seven their force. we have 13 their first-ever in thailand, were reserved. i mean, the theater was not that big. it is possible we could have had one airforce, one number their forced to kind of managed our affairs. it got so bad during the grenada invasion and haiti that the congress had to act, and by 1986 that passed the act which amended we work better together. they started with education, and then before you could get promoted to flag rank, you had to go into an assignment with some of the service, some joint assignment, and that was paid dividends to the point where we are actually pretty good working together today. and that is really good, because

as we struggle with going through the budget cuts we know we're going to have, order of $64 billion of the next 10 years, 2012 to 2021, services are going to come down in strength and capability. so we're going to have to rely on each other even more. what this really showed was the major combat phase in iraq. the services -- i mean, there was injured dependence on one another. -- enter depended on one another. there was commending the mistral forces. folks in the army go crazy with this idea, but it actually worked very well. here for seven responsibility of certain parts of iraq that you would like to have ground forces do, but you are given the task, so you do it. i mean, they're really inter

dependent. there is a lot of credit for bringing a truly interoperable all-service forced to bear on the problem. in retrospect, it was the easy part of the operation, but the major combat was over fairly quickly. started in march, over in may. saddam hussein was done. you thought captured until december, but he was gone until entourage was gone. so i think we're pretty good. and i think you will see that. maybe not the coast guard academy. i know the west point academy -- you know, before your captain's in your respective services, you will have this knowledge and feeling that is much different than when we joined. we did not have the same -- at least, i did not have as a luxury. so we're better. >> my name is nicklaus.

what was your favorite job throughout your career? oneet's see, what is the with the least responsibility? [laughter] i can tell you where i had the most fun, the most fulfilling. i was instructor of what was then called the fighter weapons school but you had to construct on a platform academically, and you had to instruct in the air and write your own syllabus in your own text book. it was really hard, but it was really fulfilling. and i was obviously a young captain. our flight and was as good a flying -- we were not at war when i was doing all this. this was post-vietnam. it was the most exciting flying you could do in the united states air force. and it was just so rewarding. so that was probably -- and you

are with people that were just as dedicated to the mission as you were. and it was just absolute fun and a blast. what we were doing was taking some of the lessons of vietnam are we did not have perhaps the right equipment, the right training, in trying to rectify that. so those years were very fulfilling in terms of how we were trying to change their force and doing it as a captain, as somebody who has been in the service eight, nine years, 10 years. so that was it. that was the most funds, i think. by the way, when we talk about character and leadership, i should have mentioned, fun is approved. [laughter] you know, i think good leaders also know how to have fun. sense of humor counts. it really counts. and other talent -- a number of times those working with secretary rumsfeld, who could be pretty intense. one of the ways to kind of get

things back to center was to make fun of yourself or make fun of something or try to be a little bit humorous, which would shot him into -- oh, yeah, ok, and then get back to doing your work. humor, having fun, says of humor, it is all part of your character you are developing. it is ok. good question. >> [inaudible] was there any point in your career in which you just wanted to quit? >> great question. was there a point in my career where i wanted to quit? there were several times where i thought i was going to be fired or get in so much trouble that i would have to quit. but i do not think there was any time where i ever felt like i wanted to quit. perhaps the one time, when i came out of japan, i was commander of u.s. forces in japan, and the japanese treat

you like the second coming of macarthur. they are very fond of general macarthur, who set up a lot of the posts for government apparatus in japan. they revere him. he is a god to the japanese. so when you come as a defender of u.s. forces in japan, they think you are a god, too. not related to any of that stuff, but they still treat you with great respect. i had a great three years there. it was full of turmoil. you may remember there was a rape of a young school girl in okinawa. i think she was 12. it was by a couple of sailors on labor day of 1995. a terrible incident. casillas the turmoil. of that actually made some progress, notwithstanding the tragedy of the family of a young later repeated on the way to the airport, i asked my wife, you know, it is not going to get any better than this. somehow i made it to three stars

but i am not going to get promoted again. maybe we should just call it quits. it had been so fulfilling. my wife said, -- we were on this minibus on the way to the airport to go back to the state, rotating back after three years in japan. i think i was doing it not because i wanted to quit necessarily, but your family has to deal with this, too. i kind of wanted to tease that out of my wife, you want to give it up, so is it, why don't we just quit? and she said, no, i think there's more adventure left. she did not even know she was speaking of. [laughter] but i never felt like i wanted to -- as you get into it, it is the qualities that talked about earlier, and working with people with those same qualities. the same military culture. folks from west point and therefore is academy in the coast guard academy, i mean, you're getting a real dose of it. you feel it. i do not know how you feel about it, but my guess is -- i mean, i have really started to feel good

about that. started in the rotc and became, you know, flying with guys in combat that are willing to put their lives on the line, does like steve talked about. one of my best friends -- started out on the back seat of the f4 and mature. my friend cedar was this wonderful guy -- the front seat was a wonderful guy named ralph. he got shot down when evening. a directed to the belly of that f4. he was off the radio, and yet the been the night on the ground of the next morning, one of my -- there was a guy that i knew, but it is that one of my closest friends. in fact, he is living in one of my houses, because his house is not ready that he is building. john tepper led the effort the next day to go find ralph. and remember i was in the tower. there would not let me do it. so they told me to stay in the tower in the supervisor.

i saw him take off in the night just before dawn. two big afterburners of that f4 yes he is heading north. and they cannot get down below the weather. but because he was a fast forward air controller, he knew it like the back of his hand. he led the rescue force down through some clouds. there were a lot of mountains. i mean, working with people like -- then by 1:00, ralph k. ride on the ramp for recap all our airplanes double-ralph -- ralph came onto the ramp for the airplanes. usually fly with your visor down to protect your house -- her face. he had his eyes are up. so he looked like a raccoon where he was burned.

does being with people like that. like ralph, he was considerably older, at least i thought he was in those days. he was a major. i am a young captain. they put their lives on the line for their country for their comrades. that is what it is about. >> i was wondering, out of all your years of service, how long did it take you to get to your position, and what was one of the most dangerous aspects? >> whitson job? [laughter] -- which job? [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> i was in the air force 36 years. by the way, i never thought i would be the chairman. when the bush administration, in -- came in, we did not hit it off very well. in fact, some of the adults here know, i think probably had one or two suits to my name.

i had a lot of blue suits and stuff. as they're getting ready to change at the chairman, i said i am not going to be the next guy, so to the nordstrom's summer anniversary sale and bought a couple of suits. is getting ready. you never know. it just happened that it was 36 years. the only time -- combat, of course, is inherently dangerous. but you never know how close you're going to come. it goes back to the integrity thing. another exam of integrity in our armed forces, and this could be an army story -- i will tell the air force version. and anit is one thing when you t yourself in harm's way. if you put a family member in harm's way, it changes everything. my wife and i, should come to

iraq with me. early on, and afghanistan as well. i remember one time in a c-130, we were leaving baghdad and the airplane parked right next to ruin us was a c-17 that had its engine and a shot off. as you're walking up to your c- 130, you're looking at that thing. did not bother me so much. i had seen a lot of airplane shot up. that is what you do, and you go do it. but i did not want my wife to be exposed to that. that is not where she signed up for. you are counting on the preflight to understand that when it is signed off on, it is ready to go. the commander knows what he's doing, the master does what he's doing, and it is ready to go. as you fly your capital approach.

i would not consider that dangerous. my wife never said a word. on occasion, i would get a really tight grip on my arm or leg yes or worse spiraling down into an airfield. we had robin williams with us one time, the uso entertainer, and it got to him a little bit. he made a whole thing out of that flight. so i do not know, i mean, you know, when the signup, you sign of to defend the constitution. part of that is the unlimited -- as some british historian soldier said that the unlimited liability goes with it, which means you're unwilling to give rely for your country. that is implicit in what you do. it does not make me brave. as you well know, it is

implicit. thank you very much. this has been great. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> "washington journal" is looking into how budget cuts are impacting the various service branches. tomorrow morning, major-general james holmes of the u.s. air force talked about last month's announcement that the air force will cut thousands of jobs. you can see his comments at 9:15 a.m. eastern right here on c- span. at 5:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span, we will have live coverage of the former secretary of state madeleine albright leading a discussion of the arab spring in the transition many countries are in now. activists from libya, yemen, and bahrain will join the discussion.

that is 5:00 p.m. eastern. coming up at 8:00 p.m., cbs news chief foreign correspondent talks about covering foreign conflicts. it is part of the series with former cbs and nbc news correspondents. that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> the united states taxes are global income. essentially you're being taxed twice for the same income. in makes u.s. companies very anti-competitive and literally forces them to leave their money overseas. >> 29, consumer electronics association head geary shapiro on recommendations from its members from the deficit reduction committee. >> the result is with the economic stimulus, we can have the money come back here, pump back into the economy at a lower tax rate, and even tie it to jobs a capital investment. that would make sense. >> that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2.

>> president obama today announced initiatives to help veterans find jobs, partially through tax credits for companies that hire veterans. you can see his comments on our web site on c-span.org. remarks now by general james mattis. he address cadets at the annual conference of the americans veteran center here in washington. you talk about the quality of a good leader, contributions of veterans, and the appearance of having a code to live by. from the u.s. navy memorial, this is about half an hour. [applause] >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here this morning. frankly, when you get to my ranks, there are not a lot of things that are pleasant in washington, d.c. so want to thank you all for inviting me here this morning to share a few minutes with you.

it is also a privilege to introduce by fellow northwesterners in one who is aiming toward serving in the army infantry. those are the last to go in close and mix it up with the enemy. what i thought i would do is basically cover about three basic subjects here. i want to talk a little bit about connection between your young folks in the audience on him so many of our hopes rest and the veterans. i want to talk a little bit about central command, which called the middle east, because it is going to play a role in europe could -- your future as cadets. and i want to talk about the military in general. i want to talk to you in a way not to give you a lot of advice. a lot of people want to give you advice. what i want to do is alert you to what i have seen in my life since i was 80 years old, 40- some-odd years ago and joined the marines, -- since i was 18 years old.

and the lessons i have learned along the way. it is appropriate to turn around and run the elevator back down and try to take young folks up and bring you up based on sometimes very grim lesson said we have learned. and one point out what to make too young folks in the audience, and i think the veterans will reinforce this, that surprise is going to be your constant companion. you'll make all your plans. some of them will come true. many of them will not. and surprise is going to be a dominant factor to each one of you. it is simply the nature of life. nobody can tell what is going to happen to your future, my fine young folks, and the veteran will tell you that probably december 6 of 1941 or in 1949 or in 1959, none of them realize that world war ii, korea, vietnam was in their future. we do nothing like that. yet it came in they dealt with

it. there is a lesson in there as well. and when the situations come knocking, maybe an opportunity, may be a challenge, the one thing you want to do is be ready. the worst thing, and i never thought, my fine young folks, that would be standing here today. if you ask me four -- 40 years ago i would be a four-star general, it was not in the cards. i had been in trouble as a lad. the marine corps straighten me out in a lot of ways, but i never thought i would be here. so what you fall back on when the surprise hits you? what do you fall back on when you go to school one day thinking it would be one way, thinking you will do fine on a test but you did not do so well? would you do when you get a phone call from someone with four stars, and you still have to say search of them, and you can imagine there is only a few people like that at the point, and they say they want you to do a certain job? you have to be ready. what you're going to fall back on when the surprises strike you, what you're going to fall

back on this year ingenuity, your result, your faith, your character, your education, and your self-confidence. that is what you're going to fall back on. as you develop every day, recognize that these are the days that one day you'll come back, and you'll say thank goodness i read that book, thank goodness i thought about this, a good thing that i sat up in class and paid attention when i heard that. because i think if you're ready when that tab on your shoulder comes, then your horizons are unlimited. we have all seen people who made bad choices in life, and much of what you're going to do in life has to do with making the right choices. it is why wanted to talk about this. to connect veterans to the young people that will carry on this experiment that you and i call america, it is very, very important. believe me, there's nothing preordained in this country is

going to continue. this comes down to blood, sweat, in tears by those of you willing to commit yourself to danger and discomfort to protect this country, just like our veterans did. in fact, the last millennium, when i was going to college, there was a rock-and-roll group of colorado across the, -- crosby, stills, nash, and young. in my day, there were wild young radicals. they had a line in a song that i did not pay much a tinge to them, but i learned over many years and challenges over the years after that. they said, you, when you're on the road, you must have a code that you can live by. i will tell you right now, my five young midshipman in cadets, you're coming of age at a time of remarkable challenges and remarkable opportunities. but you're going to have to have a code that you can live by. applied cypress hills cemetery up in new york city, there is

one of a baseball player is grave, and it says that a light that is an important except in the impact that it has on other lives. why would a man who had been at the top of his game in baseball, been an absolute success, look back on his life and say it only counts where you're serving other people? could it be that he had discovered something through his experiences that he wanted to pass on, and he had it is engraved on his tombstone? that was his coach, and it is a pretty darn good code. i think that our country, right now, more than any other time, because of the information technology and what we learn about leaders, these leaders to live by a code. i do not care if you're leading in industry, academia, a military, of politics. we need people who live by a code, you can look in the mirror and not have to duck away from what they see. you're going to have to write your own code. it is not all that pretentious,

my young folks. not like you have to go to some coursers something like that. you have to sit down and figure out who you are and be proud of it. first thing is to be proud of the. be proud of every single thing that makes you different. be proud of everything inside of you, the potential you have, and do not let anybody tell you cannot get somewhere. it is not all that difficult to write the code. it is much more difficult to live your code. one point about the military, those of you who go into it, you'll be given the opportunity to live your code, and you'll be rewarded for living your code. because it is an organization that gives the behavior it rewards. the u.s. military is a national treasure. it is the envy -- i deal with people now, and the first words i have to stay with them are, mr. prime minister or mr. president or king or sultan - ever- one of those leaders would love to have the u.s. military, every single one of them. it is a treasure worth more than

all the gold in fort knox. and it is a treasure, not because of the technology, which is very good, it is a treasure because of the selflessness that the commitment of the young folks who joined up. the cadet and introduce me, how did the inventory get its name, and fence older. many of those who fight for this country a very, very young. do not think you're an alien from those people who did this in 1776 and were fighting for upcountry collect or in 1918 or 1943 and some of the veterans here today. there were just like you, sitting there wondering what life was going to bring them, and they turn their lives and do something that became, in many cases, what we call today the greatest generation. and a point about jumping in and playing the game.

you know, i know people who, when they get to have aged, they look back and say, did i really make a difference? you'll never have to worry about that if you do in the military. he will never be concerned about that. some people want to play it safe. they want to sit on the sidelines. you usually find them because they are the loudest complainers about what is going on. they're not getting into the game. they're not taking these cribs in the falls, not going out into the ethical dilemmas, knowing it is the right thing to do. that it is better than taking the easy way out. in the u.s. military, you get repaid for taking that kind of a life and that kind of challenge in stride. i think it is often times that you're permitted to learn about yourself in the military. you're privileged in a way that many other people never had the opportunity to learn. they simply will not be know you will learn things about yourself. at times you'll be disheartened and you have to reach down and pull yourself back up. but i do not have to tell you

about this in detail, because you have veterans here today who have lived this and you have actually passed beyond a standard that all of us are expected to live up to today. let me just show you what this means, instead of putting it in big words like this. i was ordered, when i commanded the first marine division, about 25,000 sailors and marines, was ordered to attack a town called fallujah. it took two battles. going into the first battle, only had a couple of battalions to throw into the fight. so the night before the kick off the attack, i went down. the general goes down the checks out his troops, makes sure they are all set. about midnight, it is time for general to get out of the way and let the lads glad when the sun starts to come out. as i was falling back about a mile, my radio operators on my vehicles so i could get back, i

was right behind and assaults, an attack before the rest of the battalion, about an hour ahead before dawn to take out a railroad station on the outskirts of town that would allow the rest of the battalion to move up. as i walked behind the assault company, all very, very young men, living there, very cold, no blankets, laying on the ground, stripped down to their combat gear. the enemy caused some mischief nearby, so i checked in with the corporate. he said, no sweat, we will take care of this. things died down. we waited a few minutes to make sure it really died down. i heard one that is marines -- no the corporal could not have been more than probably about 20 years old himself, but one of his young green said, corporal, do you think fallujah is going to be bad in the morning? i will clean this up slightly because we have ladies present, the corporal said basically hush and get some rest. he said we take you a sheneman,

fallujah will be nothing. and we have an iwo jima veteran here today, by the way. i bring this up because there is nothing we're going to ask of you that is tougher than what our soldiers did at shiloh. there is nothing that is tougher o.an iwo jim putin confident that we train you well, and you'll be along the best people in the world. and we will need you. we will need you for this, because it is simply a legacy that has been passed down because it has been necessary, because it is still hard to believe how lucky we are to live in this country. but we live here only thanks to the veterans. it the veterans had not been willing to put themselves on the line, it would not be preordained that you and i sit here today and this free country, going to church where we want, studying what we want, girls going to school, all these things that we take for granted,

they would not be happening absent the veterans and -- [no audio] it is nudges a physical fight. it is and ethical fight, a moral fight. it is keeping yourself in honorable situation. some of your very, very young. it is hard to pass on the challenges to go forward. but i assure you the challenge will be there. i also want you to know that a sense of humor is one of your best defenses. it is as good as your helmet on your head for protecting your spirit and your heart. i remember on one occasion, i walked up behind a marine squad in a place called rahm body. there were shooting at the enemy down the street. the enemy was shooting back at them in. i walked up and i asked the single dumbest question that has ever been asked of a squad leader in combat. i walked up and the marines and

sailors, and i said, hey, guys, " is going on? [laughter] the corporal said the letter released to the local village idiot. he says, well, general, we're just taking the fun out of fundamentalism over here. [laughter] i walked away knowing that this was a squad that believed in itself, was sticking together, and would ethically carry out the mission, even though they were fighting among unison with people. a squadron that could keep a sense of calm sense of humor under those conditions are worth more than 100 generals. this is the contentious area with places like egypt and lebanon, iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, syria -- i could go on. every time i wake up, i read the

newspaper in the morning to see how my dad will go. it is generally not going to be a very good day. but they said the fact that as a alongside some of the most selfless and some of the most confident people in the world, i never lose any sleep whatsoever over something like that. and there was a frenchman who walked around our country back about 140 years ago, and he said about america, he said, america is a great country because america is a good country. and if america ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great. 140 years ago, a man walking around from europe trying to figure out, why is this country become so different from the other countries in the world? what is going on here? it is an interesting read, reading a thick book to find that sentence. it is not because we have forests in the pacific northwest or wheat fields in kansas. it is not because of a beautiful oceans at yellowstone park. it is because we have people

that are willing to commit to something as much as we may be frustrated by our country at times, i have the greatest respect for all of you in this room who look beyond the political rhetoric that often comes out of this city and stepped up to serve your country. and just remember that even the generals become a very remote from those of you who matter, we have a love for you that i cannot put i also want to remind the young cadets something that the veterans will tell you. the military is not there for your own personal aggrandizing, to make you feel good. your drill instructors will usually dissolve that image of that is your idea. [laughter] they will make it very clear is about 18, about the mission, and at times -- about a team, about the mission, and protecting this country, and that there is a better piece for each succeeding

generation. or things go wrong and we restore the peace. it is interesting to remember that the last veterans of the revolutionary war passed on just before the civil war. the the veterans of the civil war were still with us in the 1930's, and the veterans of world war ii are still with us today. there is not that long a history to this country as veterans pass on to the next generation what it is we're trying to keep alive, this great big experiment called america. and that is all it is, an experiment in sometimes a hostile laled this world. you have to look at it as a continuum. it did not start with you. if you do your job right, it will not end with the. i read it is true and it -- interesting work for thomas jefferson. he said we hold this country in the use of prayer. i did not know what the word meant.

is that a farmer can have the ground, could do whatever he wants with that crown, planted trees, harvest crops, but his obligation is to turn that crowd over in as good condition or better that he got it. that is his obligation to the next generation. our obligation is to turn america over in as good a shape or better than we got it. when it comes down to the young folks are carrying on as long standing tradition, if you keep your passion alive, if you continue to believe in yourself, i guarantee it will be a great ride at to go forward. what i wanted to do was take questions from the audience. my five young folks, i am not going to leave until you ask me some questions. let's get the pain over with. [laughter] there are two qualities we look for in our petty officers and nco's in the marines to get promoted to that is an

initiative and aggressiveness. there has got the initiative and aggressiveness to ask the first question here? it will come, just watch. [inaudible] you were talking about codes. what was your code? >> it took me awhile to realize i needed it, but go ahead and grab a seat. a great question. what i found was that i did not like a lot of the jobs i got in the marine corps. i will give an example. i hate minefields. i cannot stand the. call me crazy, i do not like going into minefields. yet, for some reason at age 21 in that age 41 and a lot of years in between, i kept finding myself in minefields. desert storm, i commanded a battalion, and its jobless to go into the mine fields and open them up is, each one of them hundreds of meters of why, so

the marine division could break through to kuwait city. i hate minefields but i did not know how i kept getting these jobs. but what i realized was that would rather be run people who are willing to go into minefields than anything else. it was more important to me than making money, more important to me than having a good job in a nice corner office. i just like hanging around with people who are willing to go into minefields, even though you eat your lower led every step of the way. i think what i found was that my code was to serve those guys and to serve them to the best of my ability. i would come up with fire plans to keep as many of my sailors and marines alive as i possibly could. i would come up with medivac place to get him out of there that got hit. it became a code of service because the people who, really like these veterans, the blank check payable to the united states people that they would put a live on the line.

so that became my coat, and it has guided me ever since. i have never regretted one day, even though there have been some rough nights lying on rocky hillsides or shivering in the ring, that sort of thing. the code, would you got it, what you know who you are, everything becomes easier. does that answer your question? >> yes, sir. >> ok. >> [inaudible] i was wondering if you have any other jobs, like if you wanted to do anything else other than the military? >> i have been trying to retire for about 10 years now. [laughter] and the problem is that when you're asked to do something and the military, there's only one response in the naval service. it is yes, sir. yes, allowed to ride a motorcycle more. and i want to teach. the above to teach young folks

in certain things, especially about civics. because i think we have forgotten just how different this country is. and if you look at your school, what i learned was, as i traveled around -- i was in cambodia when it first struck me and what was done to all teachers there, and then i picked it up loud and clear again in afghanistan where anybody teaching girls, for example, would be murdered, anybody teaching anything other than a certain book, these crackpot guys over there, they hate teachers. tyrants cannot stand teachers. they detest them. because when teachers open minds, you cannot close that mind again. so they feared teachers. so i just like the idea of messing around with tyrants but you know what i mean? [laughter] i have never lost the desire to

go after people like that. i would like to pass on some of these lessons learned in silicon do about passing on things so young folks can always look beyond what you are being told and come up with your own review of what you hear in this world, especially when it comes down to people wanting to tell you how to think. but thank you for the question, young man. >> does look combat marine from vietnam. one of the concerns that they have today is about how well- drained our young marines are. would you like to comment on -- how well-trained our young marines are. would you like to comment on the training our young marines are getting? >> yes, and thank you to your service in vietnam. to your generation that hot line. on the training, ladies and gentlemen, we're trading at a level today in the army, navy, air force, a coast guard, a marine corps, that we were never able to sustain in years past. part of it was we have not

embraced some of the teaching methodologies and some of the coaching methodologies of sports, of medicine, and it has been brought in now in simulators. i do not mean just for pilots. the aviation is lie ahead on this, but even for infantrymen in special forces. the training is tremendous. why do i say this? mit is giving a general officers you? i go out to bethesda and walter reed, hospitals, naval and army hospitals, and i talked to the of l-- young lads for the was grievously wounded. i ask everyone of them about their training. instead of saying, instead of this to the could have had more of that. add that -- everyone of them will tell me i have great training and a lot to go back with my spotting it back in the fight. you do not get as a response if someone does not have confidence in their training.

i think we will never be complacent. we have more advances. we bring in coaches from ucla and the nfl for how to coached teams. we have nutritionists' looking at the types of food. we did everything we can, body, mind, and spirit, and will emphasize, and spirit, to make sure that our training is at the top of the game. does that answer your question? >> yes, sir. >> thank you again for your service in vietnam. other questions? >> [inaudible] >> i do not know. i picked them up down the street. [laughter] no, in our tribe, the u.s. military, at a glance we look at

each other, and very quickly, we look beyond the speed are tried expects us to wear them. we do. but at the same time, we're more interested -- i am no more it inant -- let's put marine corps terms, than the young person graduating today in south carolina and has a brand new u.s. marine. this is not false modesty. the emotional commitment to the marine corps and to this country is the same, whether you are a 17-year-old marine graduating from a big camp or you are a 61- year-old four-star general. that is the leveling process that goes on. that is why there is a sense of comradeship in the military and a sense of respect that cuts across even -- we do not know each other, yet i do know you or

you would not be here to the qualities that bring you here today are exactly what keeps me around. i would not stick around if i cannot serve alongside people like you to even are interested in serving your country the way you are, as selflessly as you are. the ribbons are relatively unimportant. i am just telling you up front. i know we need to have them because we need to recognize the people have done it when they're putting their lives on the line. but frankly, between us, >> will you share with us how you [inaudible] on a day-to-day basis? >> make sure you read old books.

if you want new ideas, read old books. where you get your spiritual guidance, your family, your religion, make sure you don't lose connection with that. it will guide you in those times come. i have a young officer in the newspaper today. he just got fired because he said something. right now, he is feeling pretty lonely. the fact is, you keep faith with your god, keep faith with your family, and read some books. what kind of books do you read to have that sort of a shock absorber when things go wrong and you are in the public spotlight? i would read mandela. i would read about martin luther king jr.. i would read about george washington and abraham lincoln. none of those people that he lives. i know what times you feel like things are going wrong for you.

none of them had easy lives. they had terrible things go wrong in their lives. that questions and doubts about themselves. you will find you have more in common with them, but also as you read those things, you create a moral model for yourself and say if life is about good choices, there's an example of how they dealt with it. i am not going to be dumb and ignore what ben franklin learned along the way. i'm not going to ignore what john f. kennedy learned when he commanded a pt boat early in world war two. those of the kinds of challenges that made them care about you when they haven't even met you. i do a lot of reading and i talk to old people. i talked old people in korea. i talked to them in america. wherever i go, i talk to old people. i have a heck of a lot of fun

doing it. they tell me the darndest things. got to get going to an airport. i've got to be somewhere else in a couple of hours. i will be back in the middle east next week and i'm going to sleep very well when i'm over there now when we have young folks like you coming up or going to keep america alive. you pass it on just like these veterans did. passed on to the next generation in tact and a little bit better. fair enough? thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> "washington post" this week is looking into how budget cuts are impacting various service branches. tomorrow morning, the major general of the u.s. airforce talks about last month's announcement that the air force

will cut thousands of jobs. you can see those comments at 9:15 eastern on c-span. at 5:00 eastern here on c-span, we will have live coverage as former secretary of state, madeleine albright, lead a discussion on the air spring and the transition many arab countries are in after the many leadership changes. activists from libya and bahrain will join the discussion. coming up at 8:00, the cbs news chief foreign correspondent talks about covering foreign conflicts. that is at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. >> almost every other developed country in the world, you pay taxes on the money make in the country make it. the united states taxes or global income, so you are taxed twice for the same income. it makes u.s. companies very anti-competitive and forces them

to leave their money overseas. >> tonight, the head of the consumer electronics association on recommendations from its members to the deficit reduction committee. >> the thought is here we in -- when we need economic stimulus, we could have this money come back into the economy at a lower tax rate, say 5% or 10%, and tied to jobs for capital investment. that makes sense. >> that's tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> a house commerce subcommittee is considering whether to allow unsolicited phone calls to mobile phones. those are currently restricted under the telephone consumer protection act, which mandated the creation of a do not call registry. both sides testified at this hearing last week.

>> today's hearing is a chance to talk about age-old problem -- how we measure today's laws make sense in today's evolving marketplace? i welcome that opportunity and i want to thank our vice-chairman and mr. towns for bringing us the bipartisan legislation. the bill would update the telephone consumer protection act which aimed to protect telephone customers from intrusive telephone marketing while balancing those protections against the needs of business and non-profits to communicate and inform consumers. it did so by restricting the ability of telemarketers to make telephone solicitations and providing all use of automatic dialing equipment and pre- recorded voice messages for calls to wireless phones.

but it has been 20 years since congress passed the legislation and the world of telecommunications has changed. back then, the only person with a self lows and was probably gordon gecko. today, many have given up the land line and rely exclusively on wireless services. back then, they paid higher permanent rates to receive calls. now many have buckets of minutes of receiving an additional call costs them nothing. given these changes, it seems like a good time to revisit some of the rules put in place. the thrust was to help protect consumers from unwanted telemarketing calls. the question now is whether they are inadvertently preventing consumers from the convenience of getting other information consumers do want and while they are on the goal -- on ago with mobile phones. how can we address that? does it prevent consumers from

receiving informational calls from their banks? to the strictures and the implementations may get too difficult for businesses to engage their customers and provide them with a label services? what is the proper role for states in protecting the privacy of telephone subscribers? reasonable people can disagree on all of the answers. but we can agree the legislation should not subject consumers to unwanted telephone solicitations. certainly, we can figure a way to allow consumers to receive useful calls without unleashing telemarketers. that's the needle this legislation is aiming to thread. we have before us several experts who will help us explore these issues and we hope we will learn something about motivational calls and something about the concerns of consumer advocates and something about today's wireless marketplace. this can be a very productive

discussion about ways to improve things for all americans. that is what hearings are all about. i think our colleagues to have brought this legislation forward and would now yield -- which did not start the clock. i don't know how much time i have -- looks like i have 89 minutes and 43 seconds. since there was no objection -- the remaining one minute i apparently had -- i want to -- >> i want you to know i appreciate the work you have done the work of our staff on the act. it does strike a reasonable balance that protects consumers while allowing companies beneficial information.

one of our constituents companies is able to provide calls to customers using -- on a first attempt by as much as 30%. that is good because it reduces costs, helps customers, and makes things more efficient. under current laws, fedex is restricted in its ability to make automated calls about deliveries to customers. we need a common-sense way to fix it. >> thank you. i turn now to my ranking member from california for 89 and half minutes. >> thank you. good morning to the up witnesses. today's hearing revisits legislation enacted 20 years ago. much has changed as the chairman said, during that time, particularly in the way

americans communicate with each other. an increasing number of consumers identify their wireless device as their primary means of communication. while these changes in consumer behavior warrant review of the telephone consumer protection act, i am concerned about the potential for misuse by modifying the act. my constituents have spoken clearly that they do not like this bill. i've heard of many constituents and to a person, they do not like it. they have written to me since this legislation was introduced and they are opposed because they have a lot of concerns about it. we almost always have our wireless devices with us. i agree with the consumer's consent, these devices can serve as an ideal method for communicating data breeches, fraud alert, drug recalls, and other important information in a timely manner.

but consent is a very important term. i am concerned in redefining prior express consent, consumers will unknowingly be opening themselves up to future rowboat calls anytime they provide a business with their mobile number. furthermore, unlike landline phone, there is a cost associated with receiving an incoming caller text message on a wireless device. while it is true many consumers subscribe to a service plan, many low-income americans who rely on prepaid services did so on -- we see so on their debit card fees. if this bill were adopted in its present form, i think the

congress would hear from a lot of people on this. why should a consumer be subjected to an unsolicited text message. many may wish to opt out of these, preferring instead to receive a phone call, e-mail or other form of communication. these options should be available to consumers, yet they are not considered by this legislation. there are some real questions that need to be answered about the legislation under consideration. i thank each of you here for being with us today and i look forward to your testimony. i would like to ask unanimous consent to submit the letters of opposition. i like to yield the remaining i have to mr. doyle. >> i would like to thank our ranking member.

i would like to thank our distinguished panel for joining us today. i remember the consideration of my bill to make that do not call list permanent. that legislation, which was signed into law in 2008, allows people to opt out of receiving calls once and for all. the bill for the subcommittee today presents a similar opportunity for us to weigh the potential benefits of a business's ability to contact its customers with the importance of consumer protections. as a growing number of people cut the cord in favor of wireless services, it is commendable the subcommittee seeks to explore these on the conduct of commerce. my initial read on this legislation causes me to worry that it is possible harmful in fact could overshadow its benevolent goals. i'm concerned about the bill's potential consequences for

individual privacy as well as its implications on consumer's pocketbooks. i look forward to learning more about the legislation's impact on consumers in addition to businesses. i want to thank you again to all members of the panel for taking the time to help explain these issues to the subcommittee. >> we now recognize the vice chair of the committee. >> this is a chance to look at older laws and how they need to change to meet modern technologies. i admit after reading some articles that have been written about this that this is -- that there is a misperception, but a misperception can be reality in the sense that the essence of this bill is to ride the fine

line between unwanted and wanted communications from people who choose to have the communication occur. that is the fine line we are trying to ride here. i make no pretense here the we have the perfect language in finding that line and that's why i'm pleased all the panelists are here to help us refine the language today. under current law, if a consumer like me gives my cellphone number as my contact to an organization or business, let's say schools, already current in lot is i have consented because i physically gave them that phone number. i wrote it down on the line that says how do we contact you? that is permission.

the issue is whether the phone number is going to be physically dialed by somebody pushing 10 buttons or whether it's an automated, computer-based call. we think that needs to be modernized. that's where the line that should be drawn between weeding out or preventing -- the bill's intent is to never allow an unsolicited, unwanted call. that's the goal. you look at society did today, and it is ubiquitous in our ability to communicate with each other. i give my school myself phone number. i get text messages when there is an emergency or an issue they need to communicate. last year, it was a certain virus going around the school. we have snow days in nebraska.

i want to know about that. the cell phone is my only way to get that information. another example with some of our financial institutions, in their overdraft protection, you can sign up that they will notify you when you get to a certain point cost in your checking. you say to want to be notified so i do not write a bad check. that is an automatic call this is your account is at $20. under today's law, that is not lawful. we can go through dozens of examples where people get their phone number as a contact that want the answer that, but it is unlawful. that is a fine line we are writing today and i look forward to the attorney general, i appreciate that.

we want your suggestions on how to define that line because all of us would say if you signed up, you want the information, you should get it lawfully. with that, i would like to yield my remaining time to the chairman emeritus. >> i would like to thank the sponsor of the bill for yielding some time to meet even though he knows i am in opposition to the bill. that shows great statesmanship and tolerance on your part and i appreciate that. >> take back. her magellans time has expired. >> that is the way the game is played. i hate to be the republican that spoils the garden party, but the current system is in place for reason and that reason is people want to protect their privacy. i have a cell phone also and the only people who have my number

are other members of congress, my family, my very close friends and my senior staff. i know if i get a phone call on my cell phone, its somebody i know and they need or want to talk to me. i have 30 land line phones in texas. i know of that phone rings, the odds are better than even that is a commercial call and i don't care to get and have the time i don't even answer unless i'm expecting a call from somebody. i think what you're attempting to do is noble, but i don't think you can draw that fine line. once we open the door to automated dialing, for very reasonable reasons, i don't see how you prevent it from being used for less reasonable reasons. for that reason, i do respectfully oppose the bill, but i'm glad we're having a

hearing to air the issues. >> the gentleman yield back the balance of this time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your holding this hearing on the mobile informational call act of 2011. yes but together balanced panel and it is appreciated. the telephone consumer protection act was signed into law by president bush in 1991. in the 20 years since its enactment, there been dramatic changes in phone technology, mostly in 1991, less than 8 million americans subscribe to mobile phone services. today, or over 300 million people are wireless subscribers and every day more americans are cutting the court, relying on mobile phones exclusively. congress enacted the law based on a bipartisan premise that

residential telephone subscribers consider automated or prerecorded telephone calls, regardless of the content or initiator of the message to be a nuisance and an invasion of privacy. although mobile phone usage has skyrocketed, i suspect most americans have a high degree of concern about unwanted telephone calls regardless of where they receive them. indeed, congressional actions to protect americans from bunds fell -- unwanted phone solicitation have proven wildly popular. fundamentally, we need to look at this from the perspective of the wireless consumer. by amending the law, are we modifying consumer control over wireless phones? are we changing expectations regarding privacy? are we increasing cost? some consumers have unlimited plans, but millions do not. will consumers have a clear

ability to avoid unwanted calls and text messages on their wireless phones when such communications increase their costs? will consumers understand when they turn over their wireless number to the auto dealership, they are agreeing to receive future autodialer calls about warranty updates and scheduled oil changes or even from third- party bill collectors? we also need to understand the existing law already allows consumers to receive calls on their wireless phones from businesses and others. several have suggested this is permissible under existing law. for example, if a school wants to use an automated dialer or message to call a parent's cellphone or send them a text message about a snow day, this is permissible with the parents prior express consent. similarly, auto dial and pre-

recorded updates from banks and cable companies are ball allowed with prior express consent of their customers. finally, the bill appears to preempt a variety of pre- existing state laws in a significant way. the bill would amend the law to preempt state laws about advertisements, autodialers and pre-recorded voice messages. i know preemption of state law can sometimes be good for businesses, but it is not clear how this would help consumers or deter telemarketing abuses. alec ford to the hearing and would steal the balance of my time to mr. talent. >> thank you very much. i am proud to stand with president obama, who included this in his jobs proposal because of the opportunity it offers to assist with deficit

reduction, something we are all concerned about. i look forward to learning from the witnesses how this legislation can impact consumer's daily lives in a positive way. again, i think my colleagues for holding this hearing. as we move toward in that legislative process, i will work with my colleagues to shape the bill to keep the important benefits the bill would provide to consumers while insuring it had strong consumer protections to prevent and punish abuse. critics have said the bill will open the door to nuisance and abusive calls that pose unacceptable calls to people's bills. i don't think the incentives are there for this to happen, but i look forward to learning and hearing from the witnesses, to see in terms of how we can move forward and hoping as we move forward, some of the things that have been said, we will be able

to clear them up. on that note, i'd like to thank the ranking member of the full committee for yielding to me. on that note, i don't have anything to yield back, but i will yield back. >> thank you. i would submit and asking them is consent to submit 29 letters in support, the majority of which are from universities so they can contact their students. i will submit those for the record without objection. at this time, we would like to hear from our witnesses. we'll go from my left to right with mrs. schwartz. you may begin and, if i could say limit your comments to 5 minutes and, and i will politely tap at five minutes so it is not being rude. >> thank you. the chairman, ranking member, of vice chair and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the

opportunity to testify today. i'm the executive director of the hope now alliance, a non profit prevention effort. the founder of a nonprofit web based tool, which is a public utility for borrowers and counselors to submit packets to loan servicers for free. i have served in a leadership capacity since 2007, during which time i worked closely with members and partners of the alliance, including mortgage servicers, investors, non-profit counseling partners, government agencies and regulators to help homeowners avoid foreclosure. before my time, served in various capacities in the finance industry for 28 years. the comments i make today are my own and reflect my experience in the mortgage business before those attending to help at risk homeowners. these do not reflect all the

views of hope now. i'm here to speak about our ongoing foreclosure prevention efforts and the difficulties of reaching far worse in financial distress. as partners commit to all of the tools to assist homeowners. since 2007, the mortgage industry has completed an estimated 5 million from a loan modifications. we measured every month from that date on -- based on 37 million tons. the industry has provided 14 million solutions for homeowners, including short-term solutions and modifications like repayment plans and unemployment options. they provide alternatives to foreclosure. hope now has held a 117 face-to- face events since 2008 across the country. today, we are in houston, texas holding an event with the treasury, making homes

affordable. without question, the events have helped the experience of many customers trying to resolve mortgage difficulties through face-to-face meetings with loan servicers are counseling during nonprofit agency. but our exit surveys continue to show at least 30% of those attending had never had contact with their servicer before the meeting despite multiple attempts. the single greatest obstacle to keeping a delinquent borrower in their home is the inability to contact them and make a where the options available. the brat and complexity of options, both government programs and proprietary solutions, a full list of which i have included in my testimony makes it imperative that homeowners be in contact with their servicers, but we know from experience that borrowers did not open mail, they cancel lamb line service and increasingly rely on wireless phones as their primary or

exclusive communications device. as we see these numbers ever increasing, with cell phones and text messaging becoming the primary means of messaging, and has become clear the current consumer protection act is hindering effective communication between home owners and servicers. the mobile international call act of 2011 would modernize the act by eliminating restrictions on informational calls to mobile phones. automated calls have been permitted to wireline phone numbers, but not wireless numbers. this would allow automated commercial calls to mobile phone numbers as long as they do not include marketing messages. currently, our primary means of contact our land lines and mailing invitations. is it difficult, as not impossible to efficiently and

effectively reach 40% of consumers who rely on wireless phones as their primary communication vehicle. consumers reap significant benefits when financial institutions are able to reach them quickly. using autodialer and a pre- recorded message is not only a quicker and more cost-effective way, it would free out mitigation specialist to free up time working with borrowers rather than making repetitive manual calls. while the bill is not a panacea and will not and every foreclosure, it will without a doubt increase our contact rate. the more people contact, the more solutions we offer. the equation is very simple. if you increase the amount of customers you reach, you decrease the number of foreclosures. in conclusion, in the area of foreclosure prevention, the act is positive for consumers and those working to keep them in

their homes. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning. i am the president of a cargo airline association. we appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of the provisions of the mobile informational call act of 2011 and request our written testimony be made part of the record. the cargo airline association is a nationwide organization representing the issue of all cargo industries like fedex and all of those who deliver packages. members of our association are in the business of picking up, transporting, and delivering packages throughout the world to meet our customer's needs. at times, our members may need to notify recipients of scheduled deliveries or failed attempts to deliver specific packages. typically such notifications and all shipments for a signature is

required notifications that shipments are being held at specific locations. these calls merely provide customer service and do not contain any solicitation or marketing. in today's world, for individuals relying solely on mobile phones, it's becoming more important to permit informational calls to mobile devices. anecdotal evidence indicates up to 50% of all members provided are cellphone numbers. the association and its member companies have a significant interest in the passage of this bill. the association supports the intent in that it aims to restrict unsolicited telemarketing calls to residential and cellular telephones. at the same time, we agree the property -- properly grants authority to enact limited exemptions from the general and to permit non-telemarketing

information to a land line equipment and the time has come to expand that to sell funds. -- to sell funds. it is also important to point out phone number sarnath randomly generated or sequentially generated, but are given to carriers by the package centers to receive them from the purchasers -- from the purchasers. presumably so they can be contacted in the event they need to be contacted in the event of package delivery. the recipient appears to have lost -- if a customer orders online and provides mobile numbers, the consumer consents to the recent order. as well as other parties that facilitate the foeman and delivery of that order. this informational exchanges purely transactional and

significantly boost the ability to deliver packages effectively. finally, we believe it's important the legislation recognizes the advanced technology of the modern world. therefore to avoid any issues, we respectfully a "request the legislation be amended to provide text messages in addition to false. in view of all of these circumstances, the association urges the enactment to permit purely informational calls, including text messages to mobile phones by automated recording devices. such actions will retain the ban on telemarketing calls while authorizing informational calls clearly of the public interest. thank you very much. >> thank you.

chairman and ranking members and members of the subcommittee. thank you for inviting me to testify today. and the legislative director of the national association of consumer advocates. the nonprofit association representing hundreds of thousands of consumers victimized by fraudulent, abusive and predatory practices. my testimony expresses the testimony of the privacy organizations to oppose the bill and recently -- this letter is included as an attachment to my written testimony. the bill will allow entities to use the automatic telephone dialing system and affectionately known as rowboat

calling. under the guise of consent, even though the consumer could never have envisioned such use. under this new bill, any transaction will constitute consent to repeatedly called the consumers cellphone in perpetuity, even if the consumer does not give out their number and regardless of whether the consumer asks should not be called. if you stop by a local pharmacy on your way home and while at the counter, you have been mined in hand over your phone number. this transaction would count as consent to receive a rowboat call. you have forgotten about the transaction and a few days later, you receive a call with a robotic voice at the other end banking you for your recent purchase and verifying the

prescription you picked up is actually the when you wanted. you hang up the phone, but two minutes later, the same robotic voice is on the other line. you hang up again and two minutes later, the same line -- the same voices on the line. two minutes later, the same thing. you get the idea. this is the reality of thousands of americans whose numbers have been entered into the smart dialer technology that knows when you are likely to answer the phone due to estimating when you are available. currently, the largest debt collectors make more than 1 million calls in one day to consumer cell phones. if this bill becomes law in its present form, harassing calls on cell phones will become the new norm. today, we respectfully urge committee members to be aware of what is proposed for the

following reasons. first, creditors, airlines, utilities and other businesses may mean -- may already borrowed dial any number, including sell funds, if the numbers provided by the consumer. second, rowboat calling is permitted in case of emergency. such as hurricanes and other natural disasters. recently, in the wake of hurricane irene, technology to notify residents of an emergency preparedness measures through mass notification systems were used by municipalities up and down the east coast. third, the proponents want to completely get the important privacy and consumer protection found in the telephone consumer protection act. they want to strip consumers of any choice as to what phone number sort companies to which they use -- do business contact

them. they want to remove all prohibitions by redefining automatic telephone dialing systems to include all the antiquated technology that doesn't exist in the real world today. in fact, under the definition provided in the bill, telemarketers, the original target of the consumer protection act would now be able to roll call consumer sell funds because most telemarketers do not use randomly or sequentially -- or sequential files. they predictably dial cellphone. they want to prevent consumers from enforcing the demands of unwanted rowboat call stop and prevents state laws and attorneys general from restricting and enforcing laws regarding these rowboat calls. in conclusion, i urge the subcommittee not to open a pandora's box of the many unforeseen and harmful consequences that will result if this becomes law in its present

form. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members. i appreciate being pointed out as having spoken out on this in these paper. it recognizes that it is very important to the state of indiana and the people i represent. i think particularly, our focus of concern on this bill deals with the proposed areas that deal with preemption. pre-emption is one of those words that gets the attention of attorneys general. just in the last day, i received contact from the office in connecticut and iowa, illinois, kentucky, north carolina, north dakota, nevada, oregon and tennessee. immediately upon learning i was coming here. i recommend to all the members

to please contact your attorneys general in your home states and listen to the boots on the ground that have to represent the consumers of your state. over the last 20 years, indiana has had a unique experience under our own sense of privacy among hoosiers. we had an autodialer statute which prevented the use of the technology since 1988, well before it was seen as a problem. we had a do not call statute in 2001 that does not allow the exemption of prior business relationships. unlike the experience of the congressman from texas who says he will not answer the home phone, in indiana, you can still answer your phone because it will not be a telemarketer. we had a do not fax statute in 2006. this past legislative session, we allowed for cell phones to be

added to our do not call list. we now have over 2 million lines registered on our do not call statute. this past session, after that general assembly allowed cell phones, we had 189,000 and immediately with a very short time sign up for the do not call myself phone. -- do not call my cell phone. the autodialer is where we have the biggest problem. in indiana, if you get a rowboat call, it is a scam and everybody knows because it is prohibited. it is the one state where you ask the members of congress, where they do not use or rowboat calling, even for the town halls. it recognizes in indiana, we have a certain appreciation for privacy that may not be, in all 50 states. they are subject to the federal

do not call statute that allows for the exemption of the prior business relationship which has desensitize lot of people or, as your colleague from texas simply does not answer the phone. due to the success of our laws, the people of indiana have been very sensitive to this and quite frankly, when i have toward the state talking about my trip out here, i heard very specifically some of their passion on this issue. another point i would make is in 2010, recognizing there is questions about political free speech, i ask the three major parties in indiana to a treaty of 2010 or they all agreed not to use or encourage the use of telemarketing. i can report the treaty was not broken during the 2010 election cycle. if you look at dead history of the federal statute, starting

in 34, it was meant to focus on the services and facilities and not the use in the states. one of the things we are asking, and it is not that big and asked, having recently had a federal court preempts the use of our own state statutes prohibiting autodialer in, i would like to ask the committee to take a hard look at the use of the word intrastate which was exactly what the court found allowed for the pre-emption of things that were interstate. again coming recognize the problems of this case we submitted in our written testimony, i would ask your staff to take a good, hard look at the case where two weeks ago, indiana's rowboat call statute has been pre-empted by the very act of congress i see

here in front of us. i would grant back the five seconds i've got left. >> thank you. >> good morning. on behalf of c t i a, thank you the opportunity to participate in this morning's hearing. we were proud to support the original legislation 20 years ago and we welcome the introduction of this bill as we believe it helps illustrate how profoundly the wireless industry has changed over the past 20 years. you in your statements have talked about the phenomenal growth and acceptance of wireless. i thought for show and tell, i would bring the state of the art phone from 1992. one month after it was passed, this motorola phones was introduced to the phone in

january. this is claimed to be the first phone you could fit into your pocket. it required quite a pocket and cost $2,500. service prices in 1992 were 10 times higher than today. over the past 20 years, there has been phenomenal change and growth in that industry and in americans acceptance of wireless. we of gone from 7 million to over 300 million subscribers and we are proud of america leads the world in delivering next generation wireless services at a lower price per minute to use than any other countries in the developed world. for the purposes of the hearing today calling it is perhaps at this point, how wireless has been adopted as the primary source of communication for millions of americans that may justify a fresh look at the

restrictions on the delivery of informational calls to mobile devices and the challenge we all face in crafting a law that will prevent unwanted and communications while preventing unwanted communications. others have noted how more than 25% of americans have cut the cord. in some locations, the numbers are substantially higher. as high as 40%. obviously, this creates challenges for government agencies that want to provide informational calls to individuals who are not reached in any other way and a value timely notification of the kinds of alerts and information others on the panel have described. i want to focus the remainder of my time on three issues of the need importance to the wireless industry. first, and it is a personal peeve of mine, along with

customers, wireless carriers are victimized of by the violations by funds scrupulous boiler room operators seeking to sell extended car warranties and the like. in cases where they can locate and identify the source of these messages, wireless carriers have vigorously brought suits to shut down the scams and we are proud we have cooperated with state attorneys general in prosecuting these cases. unfortunately, while we do all we can to identify and shut down the violations, the sec continues to catalog reports as wireless complaints. we believe it is unfair for the commission to count these complaints which originate outside the wireless network and have nothing to do with wireless carriers, conduct and behavior as a wireless complaints in their quarterly report.

for this reason, we are urged the subcommittee to compel the sec to disaggregate the data from reporting wireless complaints. second, the fcc has an open proceeding in which it has sought comment on proposals to harmonize its rules what the fcc -- ftc telemarketing sales rules. we are concerned requiring wireless carriers to obtain customers express written consent to receive auto-dial or pre-recorded non-marketing calls could overturn the press and permitting wireless carriers to present free to the end user has calls without additional consent. as you may know, the industry recently committed to deliver usage notifications when they near plan thresholds. to prevent bills shock and over edges or international roaming

charges. we don't want anything to interfere with our ability to do that. third, and finally, there has been a series of class action lawsuits filed against water, facebook, banks including barclays and american express that threaten the industry efforts to protect privacy and comply with the best practices. these suits allege the best practices of sending a text message to confirm receipt and acceptance of a customer's request to quit or stop violates the act during is unreasonable and it's another matter we would like the committee to look into. so thank you for your consideration of these suggestions. >> thank you for your testimony. at this time, we will begin our questions. i'm going to start with the attorney general. this is friendly. but, i'm concerned about state preemption.

would like to ask is if you would help us work with language that would make the state's feel comfortable we are not pre-empting your individual state laws. i want to point out the flip side and why we need to work together on this. as i enter stand, one of the losses in indiana specifically allows autodialer calls from schools. the sec, of that school is sending a text message about a snow day, whether it is a university or public school, they may be in violation with an odd note dialer subject to $500 fines per student. we -- i wanted to point that out -- would you be able to help us draft language of help us protect indiana and state laws while at the same time making

sure when they comply with a state law they're not in violation of federal rules and regulations? >> absolutely. we have no concerns about how the rest of the country and federal government regulates. it is our experience, and if it sounds like i have reservations about the promises -- we were here representing the state of indiana when de legislation was enacted and there were assurances there rubino pre- emption. two weeks ago, a federal court struck down an indiana statute on the grounds of pre-emption. we would be very willing to work with the committee, but recognize we worked last time and the same people who supported this bill have been attacking our statutes for the last decade, until they finally free and that our statutes. >> you raise some concerns and

just like the ranking member's constituent, some reporters as well, that this is opening up a pandora's box. in your comments, he said our intent was to cause that. i is want to place on the record, we worked with what staff is specifically saying let's draft language that prohibits the unsolicited marketing, tella services, random calls -- we worked hard to make sure that was not true, as i took offense when you said that was my intent in drafting this. it was completely the opposite. you have a concern and i have heard it concerns from people back home, when they read about this bill, about getting the unwanted telemarketing -- will you work with me to develop

language so we can have language that is clear continues to ban -- i still think our leg which bans those calls, which you work with us on that. -- would you work with us on that? >> certainly. we want to be part of the conversation and we want to work with you to ensure consumers continue to be impacted. appreciate you extending that. >> our intent here is up when people want information, they are able to receive it without the center being subject to lawsuits and continue to ban unwanted calls. i appreciate your willingness to work with us on it. at the time, i'm going to yield back my time and recognize the ranking member -- i have a little cold going on here. and it's friday.

>> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you again to the panel. i think is -- the collective testimony has been instructive, and i thank you for it. to the attorney general, it is an honor to have you here, the legislation sets a floor and not a ceiling of allowing states to experiment and give consumers more protection. i think you have spoken very clearly about the wishes of your constituents and the actions your states have taken and i salute you for that. this would take away the state's ability to provide additional protection to your consumers by prohibiting any state laws addressing any subject matters in the bill. is that your view of it?

>> of particular concern is the use of intrastate. the fact that it says intrastate has been read by the federal courts to allow the arguments we are pre-empted on interstate, so, i heard the floor and not the ceiling. but when we are pre-empted, we are pre-empted. >> thank you. as currently written, i understand this would narrow the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system. wouldn't this create a loophole that permits -- >> the bill proposes to define automatic telephone dialing systems as machines that

randomly or sequentially generate telephone numbers. what this would do in effect is that the industry standard for dialers would not be included. would exclude what's known as predictive dialers, which are predominantly used by telemarketers and debt collectors. it would reverse the original intent of the telephone consumer protection. it is very concerning. >> this is a closely held value that came out of the legislation. i think that's where an awful lot of ups that is coming from. thank you for your testimony. if i noted in my opening statement a prior express consent, those are really important rules. they have mean to consumers. you have expressed consent to --

customers' mobile phones, what for him issue from delivering these important messages today under existing laws? >> i think you are right about the voice. i woke up without one. nothing prevents you when you have prior consent. sometimes there are new accounts and people change behavior and they close down their land lines. my whole focus is reaching people, sharing information that is pertinent to them keeping their homes and in beijing with them. >> what prevents you from doing this under existing law with the work of your organization? >> we do not go to sell phones because we do not have that prior consent or sought to

violated. >> i want to ask a question -- is the association supporting the bill? does anyone know? >> i did not look at the 29 letters there. from the wireless association, thank you. i think it is wonderful you brought the old set and talked about the changes have taken place. it is nothing short of stunning, the changes that have taken place in a short time. prices on a permanent basis were 10 times

>> i do not know that and permission, but i would be happy to provide it. there was a hearing a two years ago when some of our member carriers did provide information to congress. the overwhelming majority, as i recall, is that most do have a bucket of texts. but there are some, like my mother, who would receive an all-out card charge. -- a a cart charge. >> i was the author of the do not call list. it was the most popular bill i

ever passed and perhaps one of the most popular bills ever passed in congress. we have to understand some of the nuances between landline and cell phones. let me go down the panel and ask yes or no. no one wants to allow an intrusive telemarketing calls, and we just want to make sure you do not have your cellphone being answered time and time again with a computerized call. do you think there are ways we can clarify that auto-dialers should not be used to make telemarketing calls to consumers? >> yes. i would support the clarification that you should not be subjected to a telemarketing. >> absolutely. i agree.

>> there may be some clarification is that could be made, current law allows contact with a consumer. there is a very bright line here with respect to consent of. >> you think between auto- dialers and pre-recordings we can make a clarification so that these do not end up being telemarketing calls? do you think we can do that? >> yes, but consumer consent should be preserved. >> how would we do that? >> i will be happy to work out the technical languages, but we just want to make sure that consumers have an absolute ability to opt out of receiving any pre-recorded --

>> by calling a toll-free number and hit say? >> i'm sorry? >> they could call and make sure their number is not included. is that one suggestion? >> potentially. we would have to think about it. >> your comments? >> as long as states were allowed to have additional restrictions. >> ok. >> a prohibition on telemarketing call has worked well and is probably supported. but >> ms and, you ought citronellol says the consumer can say it should stop and can you point me where the protection it exists for land line calls and what specifically eliminate that protection? >> it is actually what is not

included in the bill. i refer to an fcc the 2008 ruling from january of that year where the fcc recognizes in specific language, if i may just point to it, where they recognize the right of consumers to request calls to stop it. in the 2008 ruling, that is absent instructions to the company, persons who knowingly delete their own members giving permission to be called. and in other words, consumers have their right to ask to stop receiving calls. it does not address that, so in essence there is no enforcement mechanism. it's a consumer were to receive a robocall, they could ask to

stop, but there would be no enforcement mechanism under the current language of house bill3035. >> that is a great point that you bring up. that is one of the areas we are willing to work on. >> thank you. >> do you agree consumers benefit from the informational calls discussed by mr. schwartz and mr. alterman. how can they open the door for that without it being harassment. mr. alterman and ms. schwartz, do you agree in the area of changing the legislation? >> abusive and repetitive, should not be permitted, already under protection, but it is very

important to be allowed an area of a business relationship to alert people of opportunities to fix a long before they go to foreclosure. >> mr. alterman? >> we do not want to make repetitive calls the and we would have no problem with the language that would do that, but i would like to make one comment made earlier that airlines already have the ability to notify people. our industry, unfortunately, is one step removed. the phone numbers that are given are given to retailers such as l.l. bean, and we get it in the same transaction. i can argue with a safe -- straight face that it

constitutes consent and we want the bill to make it clear is we want to tell someone that a package is ready. >> thank you. mr. doyle. >> as i said in my opening remarks, i think the bill was well-intentioned, but we have a lot of work to do here. if a person provides their phone number as a means of contact at any point during a business relationship, then that constitutes prior express consent. i just bought a washer and dryer two weeks ago at an appliance store. they wanted to give me a 40- minute notice before they were going to ride so someone would be there so they asked for mike phone number. i gave it to them. now, i do not ever want to hear from them any more if they have it televisions, computers on sale and i certainly do not want

text messages from that company. what i want to ask is why you think of the mere giving of a phone number in a business relationship, like the example i just cited, why you think that should imply that i want to hear from those companies in the future? >> that is an interesting analogy. i look at this completely from the mortgage experience when you take out a 30-year mortgage and you have a relationship with your mortgage or bank servicer. you need effective ways to communicate with each other. q. do not have a land line and you are going to foreclosure, -- if you do not have a land line, it can prevent that. >> just ask. it allows people to say up

front, i want you to be able to contact me, so it seems to meet your constituencies, the mortgage businesses and would never, you should just ask the consumer when you have the first contact with them, "will you give us permission to contact you if we have the information about our products or services?" and they say they give you permission and it solves the problem. as the consumer if they want to hear from people. if they say yes, case closed. i especially worry about young people. my kids cannot afford these high bundled plans. they do not talk anymore. i have to text them or they do not respond. i know the plans. it is like you have so many you

are allowed for one price, because we end up paying every time they go over and they call home crying to us they do not have the money to pay for their bill. the industry has already voluntarily said they will start notifying people they will get close to using up their planned so they do not have the sticker shock when their bill comes. >> and we are doing that for three to the end user. -- for free to the end user. >> imagine the cause you will get when they start to get text messengers -- messages from telemarketers and they will be calling you complaining about these calls they do not want to except. i think we just need to ask consumers they want to hear from these people. when i go online and order a

product there is always a box saying, "would you like to hear from us on any future sales?" i get to check the box or not. to me, i think it is pretty straightforward. just ask people. if they say yes, then they want to hear from you. if they say no, they do not want to hear from you and do not call them. >> may i follow up? my only point is that when you buy a house four or five years earlier and your life changes and you are not in contact and there are millions of people not in contact on their home loans today who are in trouble. any effective tool to reach them to have a conversation and invite them to court dissipate is meaningful. >> you say to that consumer when they buy the house, if there is a situation where we can provide

different options to you to have financial trouble, which like us to be able to tell you what those things are? they can make that choice. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate your bringing this to our attention. there are a lot of views on how you might get this done. it is not your intent to open the door to random telemarketing calls. that is not what this is about. i found it interesting though in meetings and keeping an ear to the testimony that there does seem to be a persistent issue about the way technology has changed. there are now more cell phones than there are citizens in this country. people are cutting their land lines and there are some legacy rules here. i do not want random text messages brant -- randomly

marketed to me. when my colleague from tennessee talked about the nature of fedex automated a call, i have encountered that when they called a land line but no one is there. now i have to call them, track them down, figure out where to go get it, go through this drill. if there were a way they could have just called my cellphone, then i would know to run back to the house. i'm trying to figure out if there is a way to thread this needle where we do not open this door, that i know no one wants to open. it would allow the understanding of technology to change. if i understand this right, if there is a human eye and a number, then it is ok. if i pull it up on a computer screen and push a button, then it is not ok. i realize it is probably my loss

of memory, but i have trouble remembering numbers, because i pullout this device and right here are my favorite on numbers for my friends, family, or staff and i just push brian, ray, or whatever. now, is that an automatic dialer? it is not? some say it is. right? ok. somewhere, if i had to reach 30 people, i may have a system and basically said, "call bill come ed, whoever." is that the autodialer we are talking about here? i do not know. i think there is a way to modernize the law without opening the door to on wanted -- unwated solicitation.

i yield to the chair. >> i do think you hit on probably the ultimate point here. we focus on the technology changes from wired to wireless, but the reality is the track we are in the technology of an operator dialing verses manually dialing verses clicking and having a computer program that will automatically dial, like school notices or something like that. that is the technology holding this up right now. there is the good and bad in a to figure how to draw that line. i appreciate that. at this point, mr. markey. >> i think the gentleman very much.

i am the house author of the telephone consumer protection act of 1991, amended by this act, and i feel as strongly today as i did 20 years ago that consumers should not be subjected to calls from telemarketers whether they are at home or on their mobile phones. we were looking, at that time, at people who were just ticked off that they were getting calls every night just around dinner time, an amazing coincidence that they did not call at 2:00 p.m., 11:00 a.m., always just as people were sitting down to dinner, when parents were reading to their kids, when people were trying to unwind from a long day. that is when the phone would just start ringing. we banned autodialer and

recorded calls with certain exceptions and we established the do not call list, the law creating a zone of privacy that remains hugely popular with consumers to this day. here is my question. maybe ms. hand or the attorney general could help me with this. as we discussed this, much to say members of congress get home late from wherever they go, okay? they just start calling whenever their local takeout taxi is. monday they call to have italian food, another day chinese come ethiopian. by the end of the year, they have called 20 different businesses to have to brought over. under this proposed change, what would the relationship now be between those restaurants and

you at home in their ability to call you with the good news that eggplant parmesan was now on sale. would that make it possible for them to call you that each of them had even the iguana it one time relationship on a cheese pizza -- even thought you wanted a one time relationship? what happens under this proposed change in terms of my relationship with these restaurants in the greater boston area? >> mr. markey, you raise a good point. under the language, this would now qualify as an established business relationship. >> that one time call? >> you called, provided business relationships with a purpose of

receiving robocalls on your phone. >> is that correct? >> in indiana, we did not include a prior relationship pepper -- prior relationship ex ception. when you were listed on the "do not call" you do not get called. >> would that be a nightmare families when they get a call in every language? >> it you would have not allow for the prior business relationship exemption, you would have been much more popular than you are today. [laughter] >> so if you give over york phone number, now what is just your phone number handed over to someone just to even get

information. under this proposed change it, does that now create a pre- existing business relationship for all purposes even though you may not have purchased something? >> under the federal statute. as long as it is not pre-empted, we do not have the exemption in indiana. if we have to follow the federal model, indiana would get 12 average calls per week that most people in the country do that have a federal "do not call" but not in the state. >> what is your answer to that? how do we protect them? you want mortgage and permission -- mortgage information because that is the largest single investment in their lives could possibly be in state, but now there is everything else coming in under that exception, so what would you do? there would be a tsunami of

calls that would inundate people and they would have to pay for the rights to have that text or call coming in because it is on their bill. >> i am not an expert on the breadth of the complex legal side of this, but it sounds like telemarketing to me, and i thought that was explicitly block and there was a protection against that in this bill. i would read the needle in little more closely to make sure that does not happen. >> thank you, mr. markey. >> can i recognized on my own time? >> i reserve the right to object. mr. shimkus. >> this has been a great panel and a great discussion. you can see where we are all trying to suffer with of this.

i am from rural america where propane is the heating fuel of choice. i have a constituent who dropped their land line and the system was with the propane industry that when you got low on propane they would dial you and say, "you are running well." they dropped -- "you are running low." they dropped their land line and were unable to get the call and ran out. i think we're talking about making consent easier when we understand the business relationship as more defined so that, as doyle said, he finally got a washer and dryer, but as he said, we want to make sure if there is a business

relationship and it popped in to continue the conversation, then these constituents of mine want the propane company to call them on their cellphone if they are running low. that is what this is about. i have two questions, but i want to go to the attorney general first, because his story is really encompassing of our debate here in washington. maybe you may want to restate this, but you said you were pretty well promised that the state of illinois would be left alone in your ability to deal with this. however, the courts got involved. is that correct? can you explain that again? >> the case of the telemarketing

companies, they had a client named the patriotic veteran's association. they wanted to blast out these robocalls to hundreds of thousands of people. they had their numbers because they had given numbers in when they had donated money. the court, looking at the language of the tcpa, that just as this bill says that it is not to be preempted ifor "intrastate," if they didn't mention "interstate" if they used robocalling outside domestic indiana, they are free

to do so. although well intended, it had opened up the door to pre- emption after a decade of fighting as, then they finally got a federal judge to preempt the enforcement of our own statute. >> that is a continual debate we have here about the unintended consequences, going to the court and changing the intent of a long and we have to go back and refine it. is a good thing to have on record for other issues we debate here in washington, d.c., and i will use that example in the future. ms. hand, the indiana law allows audio dialing and it does not distinguish between calls to a land line or itself on. do you think it is unreasonable? >> the state legislature determines what is appropriate for its residents and that

should hold. the state law should not be pre- empted. >> mr. alterman, talk about the benefit of text messaging. i have young kids and it is the communication mode now. it was email, bone, and now it is -- phone, and now it is texting. >> as things develop and technology develops, it is just becoming a more basic way of communicating. some people like phones, some people like text messages. text messages are a little less intrusive because nothing rings and you can answer them whenever. it is becoming more of a way of contacting people. >> i woke up my son at 5:00 a.m. this morning because it vibrated because kids are sleeping with their phones. i yield back.

>> thank you, mr. shimkus. we do have the votes on the floor. but the timing is perfect. are recognized -- i recognize mr. markey. >> i thank the chair. what we all want is a common- sense rule here where you do not have your phone ringing all night long. >> agreed. >> if, looking back 20 years and the changes that have taken place, we may want to tweak it here and there, but i think people love the peace and quiet of their phone. since people have to pay for the right to have all of these communications now, it is a bit

of a safety zone for people. the only people who know your cellphone number of the people here you give it to. it is not in the phone book for everyone to know. it is not going off 40 or 50 times because it is just some sort of public phone booth. if we can work together to accomplish the limited goals that people may have and not open this thing wide open but still preserve their right to be able to give hoosiers additional protection if they would want to do so because of the independent nature of that state that they may just want to have more protection for their consumers. >> those are all things that we would all agree with. let's work together.

i appreciate that mr. markey. do you have any questions? >> i give my time to him. >> yes, twice. thank you all. this has been a productive meeting and gives us a path forward with your advice and counsel. at this time, we are now adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> coming up at 5:00 p.m. eastern, live coverage as madeleine albright had that discussion on the arab spring in

the transition that many arabs are in after the many leadership changes. we will hear remarks from activists from libya and bahrain. coming up at 8:00, cbs news chief foreign correspondent discussing foreign conflict live at 8:00 p.m. eastern with former cbs and nbc news correspondents. thursday, james murdoch, the executive chairman of news international will testify for the second time over the ongoing british phone hacking investigation. news has made public contradicting his original testimony. you can see live coverage of his testimony beginning at 6:00 a.m. eastern beginning on c-span2. a woman who worked at the national restaurant association foundation says republican presidential candidate herman

cain made unwanted sexual advances to her or than 10 years ago. she went to him for help in finding a new job and he touched her inappropriately. she has gone public to put a face to the allegation. she is not one of the women reportedly paid by the association. they have issued a denial saying, "all allegations against mr. kane are false. -- mr. cain are false." we are one year away from election day. the national journal recently held a forum. these were held at the grand hyatt hotel here in washington. >> on behalf of everyone at "national journal" it is my pleasure to welcome you here live. i also want to give a warm welcome to everyone joining us online. we are streaming this on

nationaljournal.com. we hope these will help you provide insight on the poll numbers and key races coast-to- coast and give a robust discussion on what is driving the republican national presidential contest. we have four panels and i encourage you to stay for the entire session. if you would like to participate in the events today, we encourage you to do so. today, we will be taking questions and facilitating a discussion about the event with our online partner. i would like to thank yahoo news. our moderator is will be hosting this today. you can post questions via twitter. #njpreview.using in your seat is an index card.

you may write questions on their and submit them up front to get them passed on for answering. as many of you know, "national journal"wants to reduce thoughtful conversations. -- wants to put forth popple conversations on the most significant concerns facing our country. this election preview event would not be possible without the generous support from our underwriters, united technologies, and the national association of home builders. i also want to thank the american beverage association. the have all been committed partners with "national journal" to help bring live events to you. "national journal" is deep into the 2012 coverage. we launged our -- launched our

decoded 2012 blog last week. together we have embedded reporters on the presidential campaign trails and are sharing content across our digital platforms. our partnership now includes a republican debate in south carolina on a november 12th where scott pelley will ask about defense, national security, and foreign policy issues. we hope you will watch on cbs on november 12th or the live feed on nationaljournal.com. our first panel will be moderated by one of the most respected journalists, bob schieffer. joining bob is steve mcmahon, partner at the alexandria-based

strategic communications company. he is a strategic adviser to democratic candidates running for federal and statewide candidates and charlie black, the former political director of the rnc is served as adviser to ronald reagan and george h. w. bush. welcome. >> i think we should get right to it, so i will ask both of you -- herman cain. for real? >> he is. without much support infrastructure in terms of bonding, he has made himself a front runner. it is unfortunate this issue has arisen, but i do not yet know

the facts. herman cain is for real. >> he may or may not be for real. what is real, and you see this time and again come is that there seems to be a cap on his nomination support. the primary voter, every time romney looks like he is going to close the deal, they say, "i am not yet ready." he is now the alternative to mitt romney and you have somebody occupying that space and they are usually in the lead or right there, but it changes. i suspect before too long that it will change again. the interesting thing will to see if whether or not rick perry can get back up off the mat. >> that is an interesting point. we started down this year and

first it was michele bachmann. it looked like she would be the alternative. she went up and then she went down. then rick perry comes along. he makes it you stumble in the debates, and he goes down. the interesting thing about herman cain is that he has made several stumbles, and that would be the most charitable way to describe it, but still up there. it suggests to me that, whatever else you want to say, he is connecting with a certain segment of the republican party. but how strong is that, charlie? can that sustained? -- can that be sustained? i agree that part of it has to do with mitt romney. >> being in the news every day, i tend to think that steve

described one way of looking at the race. i do not think that is the right way to look at it. we have nine candidates out there running. different people come and go depending on how much news coverage they get. you have to look at this in a state-by-state contest, which is what it is. in iowa, the boat is diffused. i do not think there is a cap on mitt romney. his unfavorable rating is very low. in iowa, and i have not looked at the latest numbers, but he is probably something like 60-20 favorable, on favorable which means the gap is small. in new hampshire, he is rock solid. no one has ever been within 20 points of mitt romney in new hampshire. >> he is a former neighboring

governor. >> that's right, and he is popular. it will take a miracle to defeat him in new hampshire which does put him in the finals. maybe someone else will lose iowa and get into the finals, but if this race narrows to a two-person contest, he could win it. >> let's go back and talk about rick perry. this is another extraordinary circumstance. what happened to him? >> that is a really good question. i do not know the answer. he is very unfortunate that this came along at just the home -- the moment that people were starting to focus. you can go online and watch his speech from friday night and it is not clear, but it appears that he has perhaps been drinking. i do not know that it is the case, but it certainly appears

that way. it is not very presidential. to some, it is just odd. i do not know what is going on with. that evening, but i do think he needs to reset his campaign. you can look at the poll numbers and state after state he has fallen from the lead. he was close to 40% nationally six or eight weeks ago. he needs to reset. he has plenty of money. he is a pretty good campaigner, but not a dictator. if he can avoid the debates and avoid giving speeches like he did on friday night, there is a chance he can get back in this thing. herman cain, at the end of the day, will not be the person challenging mitt romney for the nomination >> have you seen this video, charlie? i would just describe it as odd. i do not know him, anything

about his personal habits, but it is just the strangest. i have seen some of his speeches, and i have never seen anything quite like it. he is jumping around, and for want of a better word, acting silly. what you think is going on? >> i was on vacation last weekend. i was in the back when it happened. [laughter] >> it is odd. i have not asked anyone in the late governor -- in gov. perry's campaign. listen. gov. rick perry has a great record and he fits the electorate philosophically. he is a good campaigner with a lot of money, so he is still a competitor in this race. i agree that he has fallen recently, but i do not think you can duck out of the debate.

they are very important, so he needs to tune up his game. he is a serious competitor in the race. >> what was the problem between the bush people and perry? there is no love lost. i know you have worked with both of the bush's. >> i do not think we have enough time for me to go through the entire history here, but as often happens, there are tensions that develop, sometimes more tension between the staff of the people but then between the principals. and i think that is the case here. gov. rick perry is a tough campaigner. there was a primary there for governor last year between senator kay bailey hutchison, who is beloved by many. she ran against rick perry and it was a pretty good race.

there is some lingering problems over that. i. president bush and governor rick perry with both say they get along fine, but they just do not hang out together >> it is extraordinary. i saw a cold here yesterday that had herman cain -- a poll leading. can that be for real? >> people do not need to focus down until the last week or so before the primary, so they have the option of liking 6, 7, 8, or nine of the people running. gov. perry has had a divisive primary, so he is not unanimously popular, but he is popular, has run a good race, and he could win a republican primary in taxes. -- in texas. >> how you think it will come down in the end? what does the white house think?

do you think in the end romney will get the nomination? >> based on who the white house is going after, they are not spending a lot of time on herman cain are even rick perry, they are going full gun after mitt romney. i think he will be the nominee. i am loving the process in watching this because it is great fun if you are a democrat to watch the other side go through this, but the republicans will close ranks about mitt romney and he will be a formidable candidate. >> i think that is right. governor romney has always been the front runner. other people have sort of a risen and fallen in the polls, but he has a terrific organization and he has that bassey on in new hampshire that i mentioned. we have not cast a vote yet, but he is the front runner. the democratic national committee is running ads against romney that are state-specific.

i saw one in arizona this weekend. if we did something like that, there would be news about as meddling in the other guys primary, but i guess it is ok. >> it is ok. we do it. >> it seems to me that there is a deep divide not just in the country, but a divide within the republican party and were you have the establishment republicans over here and it seems to me that romney is slowly building some strength in that wing of the party, but there is the other side over here headed up by the tea party people. they seem to be the ones that have the most questions about romney. do you think that we could see something in the end where it romney does get the nomination that those people on the right in the republican party would break away and maybe form some kind of third party headed by someone like ron paul?

>> that will not happen. if somebody wanted to try to get on the ballot, they should have started already. there are some differences on some issues among republicans, but they are united on one thing, they all want to defeat president obama. you have been out talking to people in the trenches, and a matter what they have to say, they always finish the conversation with, "we must be obama." if they think romney can do it, they will get behind him. >> do you think republicans will be excited about mitt romney? right now, they do not seem to be that way. >> they will get excited. primary contests always end up with whoever emerges as the nominee that is stronger as a result of the process. that was true with john kerry

in that campaign. president obama was a lot stronger candidate having gone through the long contest with hillary clinton than he would have been without a contest. whoever our nomination is, they will look stronger than they do now. i actually think we are favored to win the election. it will be close. president obama is a terrific campaigner. he will have more money even though his policies and performance are not popular, he is personally popular and likable. i expected to be a close race, but unless there is some dramatic turn in the economy, we will win the election. about's talk a little bit -- most people think barack obama will be the nominee, but what does he need to do here? what kind of shape is he in right now? i think he has problems. >> somebody told me a story about the president recently and

asked what he wanted for his birthday and he said, "an opponent." he is running a referendum and his job approval rating is about 41%, some polling as high as 45%, but it is below where you need to be in order to be reelected. what he needs instead of a referendum is whether they prefer him to someone else. he needs to make a choice. he does not have an opponent yet, so it is more difficult to do, but when they get to that point, he is already starting to save the choice will be between protecting the environment and rolling back regulations, between protecting wall street and protecting metal america. he would try to make it an economic populist kind of message against his opponent. if it is mitt romney, who is a very successful business person

and a very wealthy man, but does not seem to have a common touch, it will be easier to make that case. against rick perry, it is more challenging because he is more of a common diving down-- a common guy. rick perry is a good campaigner and we have not really seen him campaign. he said not to underestimate this guy because when he is out there campaigning, he is very real and very good. his team runs savage, a vicious attack ads. i do not think that will work in a multi-candidate pool, but in a one-on-one race, he will be a tougher candid than people give him credit for. mitt romney is a little bit more, to an everyday voter, he seems more out of touch, has less in common with the middle

class kind of voter will have to vote republican. >> [unintelligible] >> it is not really stated. there's no real way to get to it, but i think it has something to do with it. i think his policies have more to do with it. >> i actually do not think so, in terms of his religious affiliation. there are a small handful of people that may vote against him because of that, and they all live in states that we will carry anyhow. you have all heard it before, but no president has been reelected with unemployment above 8% since roosevelt during the depression. you know what is on the people's minds in this country -- jobs. on employment. add in the fact that they are unhappy about too much federal spending, deficit, debt, and they do not like obama-care, by

definition, the race will be a referendum on president obama. could the republicans lose? i suppose we could nominate someone who is not accessible to the independent voters, but we do not plan to do that and none of the people we've talked about would do that. >> it is all about the economy and the last 27-29 months, unemployment has been 9% or higher and charlie cook told me the other day, there are just a few months between 1948 when harry truman was elected and 2008, and i think there has been only 17 months of unemployment when it was above 9% in that entire time. that is a tall fence. do you agree? >> i agree it is a tall fence, but what matters the most in a

presidential campaign and the and is when it comes to the economy, do people feel like things are getting better and on a path to getting better, or are things the same and getting worse? the president's team need to knowledge that people feel like things are the same are getting worse that it will be a very long day for the president, but if they feel like the president's policies are helping and we are on the right track, then the president will have a pretty good election day. a lot of it is outside his control, but a great deal is within his control because whoever the republicans nominate will not be very well defined at side of the republican primary states, which is true if it happens rarely. >> what does that mean? >> if this goes quickly like it did for senator mccain, and i do not know if it will or will not come on but then you will have a nominee very quickly without really the kind of exposure nationally that you would want to have. john mccain was very well-known

and pretty well liked when he was announced as the nominee. these guys will be neither well known nor well liked. we did a poll in the allstate's -- in the 12 states and 9 flipped fom 2004 to 2008. in those states, both men romney and rick perry have negative approval ratings. those are the states that are most likely to determine the outcome of this election, just as they have in each of the last three. the president, relatively speaking, is stronger and running a little bit behind mitt romney right now, but ahead of rick perry. basically even with the margin of error. those are the states will determine the outcome. he is quite parlor -- quite popular, as charlie points out, people want him to succeed. his job approval rating is

below his favorability rating, which is his opportunity. >> his approval rating on the economy, in the poll you just mentioned, in the 12 states, and it is. again, people kind of like some of these other incumbents because of poor performance on the economy. yes, the dnc is already running ads against romney. if they nominate someone else, there will be plenty of money to run ads. they will be able to respond and draw a contrast to the president. i do not see how he will win if there is no movement in the economic numbers or the people's perception about the economy. the only has a few months to turn that perception around and that is it. it is a mistake for the president to run on class warfare, like she's trying to do right now.

let's see who the last person was to win on class warfare -- was al gore? bill clinton did not. william jennings bryan did not. i guess no one has ever worked it. >> most people, at least in my party, most would say bill clinton did not win on class warfare, but they would say that the president presented economic choices for people and said we are on one side and the opponent is on the other. it may sound like class warfare to the person on the other side, but they are a pretty clever crowd. they will not run down a rabbit hole that does not test well. the president is a very good campaigner. he is now getting into campaign mode, starting to draw the choice. most of the choices he is drawing for the public is 60% on the choice that the president is

offering america. he is very careful to highlight those things. anybody who sells the president short is, i think, making a big mistake here. >> before we go to questions from the audience, let's just have a few minutes on congress and what will happen there. this congress is totally dysfunctional. it has the lowest approval ratings since the polling had begun. what do you see happening when people go in to the voting booth, charlie? are they going to throw out a lot of incumbents regardless of party, and or what happens? >> historical yet never has happened. usually, if a lot of incumbents to lose the amount it is because of the tide of one party. now, and we both assume that regardless of which side wins, they are not likely in to come

in on the coat tails, but the odds are republicans will hold the house. the redistricting process, not yet completed, will turn out to be a wash and not really give 6 in one, half a dozen in the other, but it may strengthen some incumbents that one republican seats last election, so i do not seen much change in the house. the senate is up for grabs. i think the odds are better than 50-50 that republicans will win the senate. the incumbents may lose, at some in both parties, but historically, we have never thrown out half the congress, including people of both parties, so i do not see it. >> if it were ever going to be that year, it would be 2012. the approval rating is 9%, and that is not partisan, but basically a pox on both your

houses. it is unlikely that the democrats will take back the house, however, there were a lot of seats won in 2010 that are fundamentally democratic seats, so they will have a gravity problem with the president on the ballot and turnout is higher among democrats. the paul ryan budget, which would make medicare a voucher program essentially, is something that got a lot of attention early, has not gotten attention lately, but it will come back. democrats will be that mercilessly. when they do that and they remind people what republicans want to do the senior citizens -- i tell people all the time that if you were going to get into a generational warfare coming pick a generation that shows up at the polls, and those are the senior citizens. what republicans of done here, and they can argue that it is a

good budget politics, or good pongid policy, and i do not agree, but it is bad politics, and you will seem a lot of attention given to that, and i think they will put many more of these races in play that currently are in play right now. >> they are going to tell us -- tell us what you were going to do. >> we have been monitoring twitter, the discussion on line, and questions from our audience. we are picking a selection of those to put to our panelists. >> ok, shall we take some questions? tell us what the chatter is. >> this first question is for mr. black. what do you believe are rick perry needs to do to rescue the video situation? >> governor perry needs to get

out and focus on his record. 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 these debates. maybe with a little rehearsal and practice, he can handle them better. i expected to be a serious competitor. he does have a lot of money in the bank. >> question from the audience. can you discuss your thoughts on the possibilities of a third- party candidate this year? what are the chances we will see a third man or woman on the debate stage in 2012? >> charlie handicapped it correctly. the fact of the matter is that the ballot access requirements for a third-party make it very

difficult to mount an effective third-party candidacy. you have people like mike bloomberg sitting on the sidelines with an awful lot of money who could get into a race and probably would like to get into a race but is looking at these ballot restrictions or qualifications that make it all but impossible. i think charlie is also right about, at the end of the day, there is going to be a spirited debate about who the nominee is going to be. but they are going to produce at that nominee. that nominee will be stronger as a result of going through this process. one of the things that happened with president obama, as a result of the river along primary battle with hillary clinton, -- there really long primary battle with hillary clinton, that was an advantage.

i think you will see that on the republican side, too. this campaign is not going to look like 2008. it is going to look like 2004. it is going to be a battle for every electoral vote. it is not gone to be 100 like it was in 2008. >> i agree, there is not time for a third-party candidate. i do not think there is a demand for it. i think the republicans will unite behind the nominee. negative motivation is more powerful than positive motivation. people want to defeat president obama. they are not only opposed to his policies, they are afraid that the implementation of those policies for four more years would change the nature of our country. the real question is, who will appeal to those independents?

i do not have any idea what the preferences are on that. we do not have the moderates running in the republican primaries. if you look at the records, their positions on the issues, there is nobody in their view would not get at least an 85% american conservative union a great thing. i do not think there will be any need to do philosophical

ballots. there are a whole lot of other factors that go into the vice- president selection process. it is useless exercise to speculate about it until you have the nominee and they began to process. if they are smart, you will not know what they are thinking. >> we have a question from twitter that presumes that herman cain is the latest so- called anti-romney candidate. do you expect there to be another before this is all over? >> it seems to be a rotating circuit of anti-romney candidates.

bob pointed out earlier that it was michele bachmann for a while. and everybody will get a turn in the barrel. my republican friends tell me to watch for newt gingrich. they say that he is somebody that is quite serious. conservatives love him. they grew up with him because he has been around for a long time. he has not really gotten a serious look. you might see somebody like newt gingrich or rick santorum rise as a result of coming king's fall. charlie may be right back herman cain is not going anywhere. he is going to occupy this place for a little while. it is possible that perry gets back up office keister and starts to compete again. -- off his keister and starts to compete again. i am just having fun watching it. >> it is not over.

you also have to remember that even with the herman cain a surge, in every early state, iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, florida, rodney is ahead. >> let me ask you, charlie, why did john huntsman never become the alternative to romney? >> jon huntsman is -- has a great record as governor, ambassador, he is a smart person. it was always going to be very difficult to step out of the obama administration. my belief is that people, they held him at arm's length because he has served in the administration. he would have been better off to run later. i hope he will run later he would be a good president. >> which states do you believe

are key to president obama's success? >> there are 12 of them. nine of those states afflict between 2004 and 2008. -- flipped between 2004 and 2008. those are the states that are in play all the time. iowa, new hampshire, new mexico, colorado, arizona, florida, virginia. those are the states. if you go to purple strateg ies.com, it breaks down those 12 states. it will be updated monthly and it is always there for you to

look at it. it breaks them down by partisan affiliations, region. if you look at independents in those states, they are the people were going to decide to the president of the united states is. if you were looking at a barometer states, it is probably vairginia. you can take it more narrow than even the 12th. if you look at the 12, there is discrete theory called the blue wall. there is a blue wall and a red wall. if you take the state's and these are blue and these are red. these are the 12 that it flipped back and forth. you will see most of the money and the decision point in those states. >> another question from the

audience, we have had 20 debates in this election cycle, i have never thought the debates made much of a difference in determining elections. am i wrong? do you think there will debate has increased this year in making an impact on the outcome? or is it about the same as years passed? >> our primary debates this time are having an impact. by the way, they did last time in 2008. john mccain would not have been a nominee without the debates. his campaign was down and out over the summer of 2007. he had been written off by the press. he started his comeback, we did not -- he did not have any money, but he started the comeback the day after labor day.

it was during important last time. it has proven to be very important this time. it has allowed on noncandidates like michele bachmann and herman cain to get enough exposure -- it has allowed an unknown candidate like michele bachmann and herman cain to get to exposure. it has established mitt romney's front runner ship. he has been steady and solid and articulate and the adults on the stage. it has reinforced his support and as presidential stature. >> we are approaching the end of the trail. >> i agree with everything that charlie santana. if you do not think the debates matter, just ask rick perry. they seem to matter quite a bit. >> there is one thing i have learned how do in my long

career and that is get off on time. thank you very much. [applause] >> a woman who worked at the national restaurant association foundation says herman cain made unwanted sexual advances toward her more than 10 years ago. the woman said she went to him for help in finding a new job and he touched her inappropriately. she says she has gone a public to put the face to the allegations. she is not one of the women paid by the national restaurant foundation. the campaign has issued a denial.

>> seek more videos of the candidates out the c-span website. read the latest comments from candidate and political reporters, from social media sites. all at c-span.org/ campaign 2012. >> at 5:00, we will bring you live coverage of madeleine albright and discussion about the arab spring. activist from libya, yemen, and bahrain will be part of the discussion. that is live at 5:00. coming up at 8:00, cbs news forum correspondent talks about covering foreign conflicts. in fact is at 8:00. "washington journal" this week

is looking how various cuts are affecting the various service branches. you can see his comments at 9:15 eastern. >> we continue with the national journal look at the upcoming elections. and this portion, a look at the presidential race for the white house in 2012. the election is one year away. this 40 minute discussion took place at the grand hyatt hotel here in washington.

>> we will talk about the democracy and the geography of the november election. we have a terrific panel of people who have been and will be in the middle of these deliberations for the two parties. we have the president of hart research and the chair of -- a chief strategist in 2008 for hillary clinton. we have the founder and president -- co-founder of researching republic, a republican group doing research on the electric and worked for the late great carroll campbell in south carolina. we have -- he served as a

pollster under howard dean. he will be working on the 2012 campaign for president obama. let me start with a broad question about how voters are going to process and structure the choice in this election. the rnc is out today with a web ad that begins with the ronald reagan question. are you better off than you were four years ago? that reflects the belief and desire of republicans that this race be viewed by voters as a referendum on the past four years and the performance of president obama. advisers say it is not going to be solely a referendum and it is fun to be a choice. when you have an incumbent president, governing in hard times, it is the race primarily driven as a referendum on his performance?

what role does the choice element of comparison play? >> the historical entered would be the referendum on the incumbent. -- historical answer would be the referendum on the in combat. -- on the incumbent. obama is relatively slow down on the list o. president bush is still higher up. and last poll i saw, 47% say that they would give president obama a lot of the blame. i think that changes things for people. the reality is that this will be a choice, even in 1980,

things did not really break until the voters took a look at ronald reagan and decided he passed muster. it was only about jimmy carter. >> india and, in 1980, -- in the end, the incumbent president and of running pretty close to his approval rating. is this going to be a referendum on president obama. to what extent can you run above his approval rating by erasing doubts -- raising doubts about the republican candidate? >> the idea is that this is not going to be a referendum on the incumbent president is whistling past the graveyard. it is wishful thinking. the way reelection campaigns work for incumbents is that you look at the alternative challenger, just like voters in 1980 looked at ronald reagan, and if they find him or her an

acceptable alternative, then the focus inevitably shifts back to the president and weather -- and be there or not. better off today than we were four years ago. -- and whether are not we are better off than we were four years ago. i do not know how an incumbent president presiding over a country where three-fourths of the voters think we're on the wrong track can possibly be reelected. >> by historic standards, these are numbers that have been more consistent. 74% -- we have not seen that. how does an incumbent survive that kind of time?

>> i do not know if i agree it would be ronald reagan comparison. when you look at the recession that this country has been in it, it it's it's a phenomenon -- is a phenomenon. the big >> factoring -- x-factor is that they do not blame the the president for the mess we are encouraged it took us a while to get in this mess and it is going to take a while to get out of this mess. the president has to show that he is going to move the country in the right direction. he is doing this sort of thing to set this up so we can come out on the other side. the republicans will try very hard to make this a straight referendum. strategically, it is what they have to do. what we have to do is draw the contrast. you will see in this election

cycle republicans working very hard to make this a referendum. this is the present's economy. -- the president's economy. i hope that the american public has amnesia. we have to make a choice. a contrast between president obama, who is trying to prepare as for the future, or half the republicans are doubling dallin on an old set of put -- doubling down on an old set of policies that got us into the mass. the changes going to be try something different for what we tried the last four years. >> i do not believe that. i have worked on a lot of successful reelection campaigns for governor as to what had very low approval ratings. people --

>> approval and support are not necessarily the same thing. thatis there a number president obama has to get at to have a reasonable chance of winning? >> it is difficult for a governor or a president to get reelected -- president obama is well below that in most polling. he will have to run well ahead of this jobs report. that is a very challenging thing to do. >> how many of the incumbents last time, have 50% approval? a number of them -- the number of them is really low. >> the president is at 43%.

it is not that he is -- he needs to continue to improve his job approval rating. his low point in august was down to 38%. he is now out at 43%. we will see where he is in the 13th quarter. it would be better if his approval rating got higher. the one thing i would say that makes obama different is that even now in bad times, there are a bunch of reasons why american voters still root for obama and still hope that he can be successful. he is not a finished product. in the way that lots of other incumbents have been at this moment. people like obama. they think he is a person of potential. they still believe that he can realize this.

>> let's talk about the structure of the report. he won 47% -- he was weaker among those blue-collar non- college why iites. where do you think he faces the most risk of the erosion of his numbers? >> he was created by hillary

clinton and the democratic primaries. -- creamed by hillary clinton in the the democratic primaries. he has done nothing to help bring that back. then you talk about the independent vote. you have the republicans and democrats counseling each other out. you have the remaining quarter better independent. they went for president obama by a percentage points in 2008. the polling that started showing in april of 2009 those independents going south on the president. now you have independents saying they are not going to support the president. that is a major problem for president obama. i see no evidence that he has made inroads to bring those back. >> i expect that he will do --

there is no evidence at all that support for president obama or enthusiasm has dissipated at all among african-american voters. the biggest challenge is maintaining the strong showing he had with young voters. young people had an excitement about president obama and about the change they hoped would occur under him that simply does not exist anymore. we have done a lot of focus group research with them. what they say is now that we were on a realistic and then, more realistic now. their level of participation and

enthusiasm is going to be very different. i am just saying different numbers among independent voters. the improvement in the gallup polls since the end of august, a lot of that has occurred among independent voters. independents -- >> looking at the white electorate -- talk about that for a minute. can he match that 40%? where does he stand on monday suburban well-educated? -- among the suburban well- educated? >> it depends on who the

republican candidate is. there is air results that suggest that republicans are underperforming. there is an enormous skepticism about what the alternative alternative -- republican alternative represents. been damaged romney is not an attractive candidate for working-class -- mitt romney is not an attractive candidate for working-class white men. they will either not to vote or do something else. mitt romney is not the ideal candidate to maximize the votes. >> it touches on a broader challenge. he mentioned the issue of young people and representing that

vote in 2012. when you look at young people and minorities, those are some of the people in this state -- face the toughest times in this downturn. incredible figures on the liberalization of guelph because of the housing incredible figures because of the housing bubble. when you have people struggle in the are in this economy. >> i want to roll back for a second. this blue-collar white vote, it is not like democrats have been running away with that votes anyway. go back to lbj. look at john mccain. you have to understand that the face of the electorate is

changing. do we have to be competitive? absolutely. it is not lead democrats have been winning those historically. what is key -- you have 11 or 12% of the electorate. they changed the face of the electorate. they were younger, blacker, broader. they made it possible -- b rowner. they made it possible to see the kind of victory that we had lost time. that a new electric is absolutely key. -- an electorate is absolutely key. we make a mistake when we think that a new electric is a democratic electorate. there are not. they are obama of voters. they made a conscious choice to

say, politics is a vehicle for what i am trying to do. >> how do you reach that the electorate when so many of them are struggling economically? >> they still believe in barack obama. they still have faith and hope and barack obama. they still believed in the policies that he is trying to implement. when you talk to these voters, they're frustrated about washington, but they are not so much frustrated and disappointed in barack obama. they are frustrated about what is going on in washington. if anything else, this is a group that had his back before and they will have his back again. are disappointed? absolutely. >> barack obama became the first president to win while losing white boaters by double digits. -- voters by double digits.

do you think president obama can match his to thousand a votes among -- 2008 votes among whites? >> the republicans have to do a lot better among non-white voters. if we have the same demographics, john mccain would be president of the united states. clearly, republicans have got to do significantly better among minorities. i do not see how barack obama does as well among the white voters again in 2012. >> we will stick to mitt romney

and rick perry. does it look very different depending on who the republicans nominate? >> i think a little bit different. the nine college graduates vote is more open to obama -- non- college graduate vote is more open to obama. if rick perry is not a nominee, obama's of votes will surge with suburban voters. he does better with college educated whites.

in terms of the leadership model, it does not fit the mold. >> you are supporting john has been project is mitt romney -- is the republican advantage among blue-collar whites -- can make a populist argument against him? >> i do not think so. he is going to be an acceptable alternative. people will be able to see him as president. we have done -- people, once they see an acceptable alternative, will look back on barack obama and say, are we better off than we were four years ago? the answer is going to be no. >> there may be some differences. the over arching dynamic of the race is going to watch over those smaller differences. >> what a way that the president

and democrats have been trying to deal with this is a message that it has a higher octane populism. it is reminiscent of al gore. we of all talked-about how obama does better among the more suburban couple middle-class communities. is there a danger that the populism will drive away some of these upper-middle-class voters who are being drawn to him? when he talks about the rich, will they hear it as an attack? >> when you looked at the growth -- gross inequalities that are occurring in our economy and you look at what is truly a grass-roots movement around occupy wall street,

people are ticked off about what is going on. the cbs poll had 60% of the americans upset about inequalities in the system right now. i think you have to be able -- you have to be on the right side of that. i am looking to see -- we are never as organized on the left as our friends on the right. it will be interesting to see if they occupy wall street movement can organize itself into a counter for the tea party. i am looking to see if -- and i think there is a place for this. if we have occupy candidates running for congress. if they have the organizational ability, to challenge

incumbents, i think it would be powerful. >> the populism -- is it an effective message? >> it is a huge problem if the new face of the democratic party becomes the occupy wall street movement. they are anti capitalists. i think it is a huge problem for democrats if the occupy wall street movement becomes the new phase of the democratic party. >> what is the nature of barack obama's populism? he says we should not go back to a time when wall street is unregulated and left unaccountable. that represents -- he says in dealing with a substantial deficit, the burden of

addressing that should not fall entirely on the shoulders of the middle class and senior citizens. those who are best off in the the country will be asked to do their fair share. this label populism -- it is only about 75% of the public. the republicans -- >> we have to go to questions. i want to ask you about the electoral college -- barack obama 128 states. when you look at his 28 states, what is the most have to worry about offending in 2012? >> you have to start with the nine states -- you need to

expand that to take a look at what happened in 2010 in places like wisconsin and michigan and new hampshire. there are 12 swing states that have 162 electoral votes. that leaves 196 pretty solidly democratic. there is a huge treasure trove of a 162 electoral votes in those swing states. that is where the money focus is going to be break. >> do you think the democratic masses are evolving? the strength with this new electorate'. is the tipping point for democrats shifting? >> you have to look at the

ticking point for american battlegrounds politics. go west, young americans. colorado, nevada, new mexico, arizona. they're becoming essential that job. it is also how our population is moving. -- they are becoming the central backdrop. it is how our population is moving. our population is moving westward and that is important. the focus of the battleground -- i love you, ohio and missouri, but the focus on the battleground is moving westward. that cobol of colorado, nevada, new mexico, they will be the bellwethers for what happens in this country on a national basis. >> the map for 2012 is -- this

is a card with conference realignment. we have the acc in florida, virginia, north carolina. right now, the president runs ahead of romney in all three of those states. they're all up for grabs. there are industrial states and could buy ohio and -- anchored by ohio. that part of america, i think, there are risks there. you have the southwest conference, colorado, new mexico, nevada, and arizona. i think the kinds of voters that are important are different.

>> i know we have to go to questions, the other thing -- do not think we will not try to expand the electorate this time around. we will be competing in states that we were not competing in last time around. it is going to be tougher all around. >> let's bring in some questions. >> this first question is for everyone on the panel. do you believe the president can improve his approval rating if the economy does not markedly improved? >> county improve his approval rating without an object -- county improve his approval rating without an uptick in the academy? >> it will be difficult.

this has been a stubborn unemployment rate. beyond that, it is the fear of what will happen to people who have jobs to -- or to are underemployed. that is what concerns people right now. it is going to be very difficult that the economy does not have a significant turnaround. >> the reality is that we know it has gone up since the end of august and the economy has been approved -- improved since august. it would be helpful if the economy improved a little bit for that to occur. to me, the important moving piece is voters having a clear sense over time of where the president is leading the country. how do we get the hear from there? when you ask americans what is the obama plan, they certainly

do not have a clear sense of that. the president has been doing much better in articulating the sense of direction. here is how we get from here to there. if people say that they have come to the conclusion that the president has an approach that is going to take time and he is taking in the right direction, that will have a beneficial impact. >> you have touched on occupy wall street and the possibility of occupy wall street candidate in the the democratic party. we have a number of cards that asked about that. i was wondering if you could expand on that. what would be as candid look like? -- what would these candidates look like. one audience member asked if the democrats or making a bad decision and aligning themselves with this fledgling movement?

>> i do not see them as democrats, quite frankly. are they more left than they are right? absolutely. are they speaking to a real sort of anger and disappointment and -- from the left? absolutely. i am not surprised that establishment washington proposed -- poo-poos the young people in the streets. the people to bring about change and the establishment of washington have to fall or listen to those people. for me, not as a democrat, i am fascinated by it. i think it is part of what makes

it's so unique. you can have people start protesting what they dislike. it is spreading globally. the challenge for them, and i do not buy into this idea that they have to have a set of policies, the challenge is that they have to organize into a body that can apply pressure to the political system. i know there is some pullback from many of them on that. there also such a diverse group. it is a lot easier to get all lot of old people look-alike to agree. i hope to see them organize into something where they do apply pressure. they are very much the populist. and occupy candidate would be a

very good thing. >> do you think democratic leaders might be careful in aligning themselves with this? would there be a downside? >> i think the president and the democratic leadership are operating on a separate, but parallel -- the anger that underlies the occupy wall street movement and explains why -- wall street took unfair advantage of it situation. i acted in an irresponsible way. -- acted in an irresponsible way. their rest of the country had to

walt -- bailout wall street and now wall street is doing quite well again. in terms of how to operational lies that, the president of the democratic leadership on one track and the occupy wall street are on a separate track. there is no evidence that the public confuses those two things. >> you mentioned that and it romney -- mitt romney is an example of someone who does not appeal to the working class. are there candidate that do appeal to working-class white men? >> i am not exactly a disinterested observer.

i think jon huntsman would do the very best of anybody in the field of getting those independent voters. that is one of the reasons why the obama administration fears john has been more than anybody else. he is acceptable to many of those people in the metal. i think he would do very well and getting be -- and the middle. i think he would do very well. >> why isn't that ahmadinejad announcement-type cannot -- why business that date john huntsman type cannot catch on? >> he puts all of his eggs in the new hampshire basket. he is doing better than he is nationally. we all know what kind of independent cusses they are in

new hampshire. i think it is too early to say. >> is the party going so far that jon huntsman is unelectable in every collection? >> we have a conservative party. we do not tend to nominate the most conservative candidate. we tend to nominate a somewhat conservative candidate. >> could you discuss for a few moments of the role of faith to play in the 2012 election? there is a possibility that we could have a mormon candidate. there were questions about president obama's christian faith. all those questions re-emerge next year? >> faith is very important to america.

they're far more likely to be churchgoers than people in europe. that said, the voters want their president to be a man or woman of faith. the debate is going to be, how do we get this economy galling? how do we get the unemployment down? >> we do know that going back to 1970, how often they attend church is the single best predictor. if the canal one thing about a church it was weather there was a bible present in the hall. -- in the home. >> if you happen to be african-

american, the more likely you are to be democratic. faith takes these two groups in very different directions. we used to talk about people voting for their higher interest. there is something to be said about that. it is not just about economics. it is also about the values. the candidate who can match with the values of the voters regardless of their penpoint economic or health care plans, that is how you make the initial connection with voters. voters have to trust you. once they trust you, they will be open to listen to you and see what you are talking about.

if they do not trust you, the idea that you can relate to them, that is important. >> i want to ask you for one quick prediction. what is going to be the tipping point states in the election? if you had to pick one state and say, whoever wins this state is probably going to be president, what one state is some state most likely to vote with the winner? >> if president obama account went to that of the following -- can win two of florida, north carolina, virginia, or ohio, he can be elected. >> i am going to go with ohio.

>> it the -- if he loses ohio, he is very likely to lose other states. >> i will agree that -- it is between the virginia, north carolina, and colorado. i think the bellwether states -- if you win colorado, it says something about what he is doing in the country. >> i will take a virginia. i hope we can all gather again one year from now. thank you for joining us. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this is the formal part of filling out the declaration for candidacy. it has been completed, except

for the signature. >> all its needs is a signature. >> this is the filing fee of $1,000. we do this every four years. >> you have a great secretary of state. we appreciate your leadership. we will make sure that new hampshire remains first in the the nation. it is their responsibility and an honor. i am happy to be part of that process and put my name on this paper, hoping that this time it will take. i will be able to become the nominee of our party and the next president. >> the new hampshire primary is set for january 10. you can follow campaign 2012 on line with the c-span video library.

the c-span video library, it is washington, your way. cbs chief correspondent talks about covering foreign conflicts. we will have live coverage on c- span. >> almost every other developed country in the world, you pay taxes. the united states taxes are a global income. you are being taxed twice for the same income. it makes u.s. companies a very anti-competitive. >> tonight, consumer electronics association head gary shapiro on recommendations from its members to the deficit reduction committee. >> we need some economic stimulus, we could have the money come back here, pumped

back into the economy at a lower tax rate. these type of jobs are capital investments. >> tonight, at 8:00 on c-span2. >> "washington journal" is looking into how various budget cuts are affecting service agencies. you can see his comment at 9:15 eastern on c-span. >> thursday, and james murdoch will testify before a british committee for the second time over the ongoing phone hacking investigation. new evidence has been made public contradicting some of james murdock's original testimony. you can see live coverage at 6:00 thursday on c-span2. >> the defense of liberty.

let me remind you also, moderation and the pursuit of justice is no virtue. >> he lost the 1964 presidential election to lyndon johnson. barry goldwater's ideas and canned or galvanized the conservative movement. the senator from arizona is featured on "the contenders. " friday at 8:00 eastern. >> a live picture from the national democratic institute in washington, d.c., where we are expecting a discussion to get underway shortly. a panel discussion hosted by the institution about the political uprisings in some north african and middle eastern nations. it is also known as the arab spring.

this process is the focus of this panel discussion. it will be moderated by madeleine albright. we can see folks are making their way into the room. we expected to get underway shortly. madeleine albright will be joined by an activist from libya, yemen, and bahrain. we will wait for a moment and see if this gets started on time. live coverage here on c-span.