>> is the right to ask anyone in uniform to accept reductions in their benefits when we are feverishly protecting every other internment that the rest of the country enjoy. it really troubles me that sequestration also targets defense and boosts the budget is proportionately. . .

importance. there are important to our security interests. i would look for ways to be more economical. the balance is right. if you have to go deeper than that you have to have a revision about what interest you are willing to protect less. >> i wanted to come in with another and point. there is an argument we are

business as usual even with the four hundred and 50 billion. he said he would not have done that way if he was in charge. it was his last day. we have not faced the tough choices. we have 17 public depots. we're not tackling that. we do not have the political will. a wreath -- everyone who has done a study says it is a wasteful entitlement program. we do not have the political will to tackle these. i do not see that 2012 is a serious budget. maybe it's a question -- -- sequestration is the path. is this business -- business as usual? >> i will say a brief word.

you mentioned commissaries. buy recommendations eliminate them. to get to 400 billion, depending on which baseline you use, which was mandated by the august part of the day -- deal, you have to do the kind of spread your mentioning. on top of all the other things. there is not four hundred billion to scalpel the defense budget. some people want to claim that. there may be that much waste but it is marbled into the muscle that it will take a lot of effort to get it out. you're going to have to make tough decisions about capabilities and the sort of the benefits or programs and the

usual ways of doing business. i am favor of the cuts. just not the sequestration. >> you are right. there are these things we have talked about for a long time. i left to the congressional budget office in 1983. i am having a sense of deja vu. it is very frustrating. >> you go into any state and you have thousands of municipalities that all duplicate surfaces. what is happening is the fiscal situation is so dire that the initial phase is, let's canal and -- consolidate services. people like their municipalities. they are like their high

schools. there is a way to drive efficiency through this consolidation approach. i believe that is going to be one of the legacies of this prolonged recession. out there in the country, it is a prolonged recession because it is kicking in right now. because of the property taxes and the depressed amount of demand. i think we are about to see a level of reform on the domestic side which is going to be remarkable. it is allowing for the politics to catch up with the evidence. >> there are elements of hopefulness with in this conversation. >> submit the i am from johns

hopkins university. i have one question for michael and another for alice. for michael, i am interested in this formula. define au going to stabilization mission? are there differences in terms of ground troops or not or budget preparations? my question for alice, i have seen some reports. millionaires asking for more taxes. before that, warren buffett said that rich people had been coddled. why do they do that? why do they say that?

is it going to have an effect in terms of influencing the congress decisions on the budgets? >> you can start. >> this is -- you raise something of a quandary. it is absolutely true that the income distribution has gotten much more unequal over the last couple of decades. particularly recently when incomes have been growing slowly, if at all, and lower income people have been falling behind. the top 1% have been making out like bandits. so it is tempting to say, let's go after the top 1%. the question is how to do that.

whether you have a tax on millionaires or warren buffett's idea. it was lamented. making sure that people at the highest income pay at least the average tax. much of his income is capital gains dividend and carried interest. that seems outrageous. all that is true. i would be happy to see the buffet will and the surtax at the high and. it does not solve the budget problem. the best way to solve it is a thorough reform of the income- tax which would allow an actual lowering of the rate. and raise a good deal more revenue in a progressive way.

what the progressives fail to recognize is that the loopholes, the exclusions, " to the upper income groups. i favor a drastic reform of both income taxes. we had a different one -- the idea is the same. get rid of almost all of the exclusions and deductions, broaden the base, lower their rates and you will have more revenue. >> for is the ground forces, and this is for the ground forces. the navy and the air force needs to think about correa, the western pacific, and maritime contingencies.

where they could have operations separate from the sort of things i'm talking about. it is a big regional war not a mike we have been planning for the possibility of another aggression for many years. not unlike operation desert storm. because i have listed several conflicts of different characteristics, we cannot be too precise in our image of what future demands will be placed upon the american military. we need some cushions and margins for error. when i talk about those missions, i am thinking about a mission in which the international community, under u.n. authorization, gets involved as part of a large operation or the u.s. is not unlike what we did in the

balkans where we provide a third of the ground forces. i am separating that from the current operation in afghanistan where although there is a stabilization, it is an offensive smell -- military campaign. for the one war, the most likely candidate is north korea. there are other possible places as well. the stabilization missions might be, let's say that the syrian civil war becomes suggested that in becomes much worse. hypothetically bashar al-assad -- bashar al-assad fleece. at that point, perhaps acting in collaboration, we authorize an international mission with the cooperation of some syrians but

also with the lack of cooperation from others, to go in and stabilize the place. that is not a full-blown war but it will be more than a classic peacekeeping operation. that is what we need capacity for. not because i expected them to happen but because the planning house to allow for the reasonable worst-case. >> i am wondering what the next steps are. where do we go from here? is this reflected in the budget proposal? is this an overhang? or is this something that is kicked until late november 2012 after the governing mandate? this is said with the knowledge of the president saying we are not legislating. with all that in mind, what is

next? >> that you want to start to that? >> remember the sequestration does not kick in until 2013. i do not know what the answer to your question is. i think it is going to be difficult with the administration to put forward a 2013 budget in the face of this. i would expect there would say here is a better thing to do in 2013 and sequestration. the next moment, there will be two. one is there is a lot of unfinished business that has to be taking care of that could have been folded into the super committee. that includes the alternative

minimum tax as well as the extension of the payroll tax. other extensions. something has to be done about that stuff. it is expensive. it will at to the deficit. that is why it is a shame you cannot phone it in. i do not know what they will do. some things will move forward and some will not. the big moment is likely to be after the election but before the end of the year, no matter who wins, are the cuts extend it? if so, under what conditions? >> that land? time will be crucial. >> you may or may not have a lame duck president and you may or may not have a change of

control on the hill. it is all very uncertain. >> from our perspective, metro, local, it is time to enter the conversation. it is time and to put forward a cross section across both sides of the aisle as the next federalist compact. we see were washington is going. the 2012 election will not resolve that. what is the new compact? whether along the lines of what alice suggested 20 years ago which is unbelievably relevance today or whether it is at least, if you're going to start cutting in this across the board way, let's agree imagine the way

a whole host of federal programs are designed and then executed by the folks who have to execute them. when i was chief of staff my boss would say every week we do not build one home in this country. it is all delivered through this distributed network of public housing agencies and private developers. they are the experts. they are the practitioners. we should be flipping the pyramid and having our product -- policies be in the service of the folks to deliver all of this. that is the kind of aggressive stance that a number of leaders are going to have to take because they are the innovators and they are the pragmatists. i think of that kind of stance

could begin to inform the presidential debate and could inform the governing that happens after 2012. >> what he was referring to is more relevant now than it was 20 years ago. bill clinton loved it. he was governor of arkansas. the first conversation we ever had was about how great he thought my book was. his interest faded as he became president. he had a different agenda. presidents are leery of turning things over. >> in the fifth row.

please identify yourself. >> i hate to pour a damper on all of this praise on the pragmatic caucus. i do not see this party stopped. it seems to me that governors are always a favor of of federalism until there is a hurricane, crime, then there is a natural disaster. everyone in louisiana is in favor of small government but the federal government is keeping estate in business. -- that state in business. american history is incremental. i do not see any drivers in the long term.

i think we have to remember that all american political thought can be summed up as to get to government off my back, and there ought to be a lot. -- law. >> i would disagree with your premise. there is already a sorting out happening. it is a work koran. -- workaround. " is going on in a lot of states, it is not across the board. there is not going to be one place doing all of these things. they understand that they have to make tough decisions to get back on a growth trajectory. they understand their economies are distinct. they can all desire to be silicon valley but they are not.

some our advanced manufacturing, some are consumption economies. that need to diversify. i think what you will see in the next three to five years is making the kind of targeted investments in those infrastructure or cluster areas that relate to what they do best. it is ugly ball because they are also cutting others think that's. this is never perfect. i do see a level of focus and discipline with regard to a certain segment of what could be considered transformative investments happening across the state. they have not got to the point where they are saying let's let this be the norm now.

that is a radical thought. it says that the last 30 years of federal expansion needs to be radically rethought with regard to a set of discretionary programs. i think that will happen. i think that is going to happen. at a minimum what you will see is a return back to what nixon and thene early 1970's ford completed and reagan did more which is the consolidation. i think that is coming. at a minimum. we have so much special programs across so many areas of domestic policy. the legacy government is coming. it may also shifted to this much more dramatic realignment with

all of the caveat that alice said about president clinton. people are frustrated out there. >> i hope bruce is right. to come back to the deficit problem, it is not discretionary spending that is driving the deficit. it is not defense spending either. until we get on top of entitlements, and i believe this tsunami of retirees is going to require a reduction, until we get on top of that, we have this thing hanging over our heads we know will damage the economy. >> the next question. over here on the side. >> neck farmer, retired

assistant. this is for bruce. it seems to me the equivalent to the entitlement and tax issue at the federal level is pensions and public education. can you address those? >> you have the 50 states which we should presume are 50 different countries. how bad are there bad habits? that is the only issue. i was in california. real bad. california has become that -- as opposed to a representative democracy. no one is in charge anymore in california. everyone should do this -- read this piece michael lewis did about the over extension of california government and the liabilities they face. my sense is, in state after

state, the rules of the game very. you're seeing governors beginning to get a hold of the major cost drivers. michigan, to take an example, governor snyder pushed through a management law last year. he is now pointing financial managers to detroit. they are going to have to deal with these pension liabilities and begin to restructure. the second issue is k-12. it is a and mix of need for investment and radical reform. what we have had in the last 20 years is the kind of expansion of responsibility for schooling,

through charters, the public housing innovation, it has been an interesting period. we have not had it with a whole number of other areas of domestic policy. schooling has been opened up in the united states. but not uniform. i think what is happening at the state level is this a war about how competitive we should make schooling. how much should we open up the system? still have performance measures but allow for a much more dramatic distribution of approaches. the one thing about the states and the city's in the metropolitan areas, someone is doing something to deal with the systemic issues we have. they may not do everything across the board but if you want

to find an example of state of of the art innovation, due confined it. the way we operate now is less of a top down society than bottom-up. where innovation spreads through the private marketplace and the political marketplace. primarily as much by social media as by traditional media. i believe that we have a group of leaders understand what their success -- systemic challenges are. there are a bunch of innovators out there. they are showing the way forward. the viral kind of cycle we are in now where innovation is identified and replicated at warp speed is beginning to kick can. -- kick in. that is a more optimistic view

than the washington environment which is more top-down, more emblematic of the 20th century than the 21st century. i may be delusional. [laughter] but i hope i am not. >> two last questions together. the woman in the eighth row and the gentleman behind her. >> my name is rachel. theld you talk about prospects for the unemployment insurance? >> my question is, how big is the need for the leaders to have

another credit downgrading from other major credit rating agency? how much a reaction will be from politicians in d.c. to carry out a greek bargain? what signal would be enough? >> i do not know what will happen on the payroll tax extension. and the unemployment. i think there may be a majority for extending those that is a very desirable in terms of not taking bigger risks with the economy and whether there is a majority of congress that understands that or not i am not sure. it is harder to do now that we have had the failure of the joint select committee.

downgrade. i do not think washington would take it seriously. rightly so. standard and poor's and the rest of them, they do not know anything about the federal budget that we do not.

we're on our own. we better get control of our

destiny if that's the greatest thing we get. >> that's the silver lining. >> and i'm going to pile on the sequestration to link this to afghanistan. some of you may say, well, we all know even if sequestration is going to kick in, it's not going to be there for better or for worse. a lot of people are going to say it has to apply to the ground forces. the ground forces can't be reduced because it's a tough operation, messy place but i'm going leave you with two words of hopefulness with afghanistan if we stay patient. one is that in the last year,

violence initiated by the enemy has declined 25%. if we're looking at the summer, early fall period of 2011, versus the summer of early 2012. other kinds of violence like from crime may still be holding their own or going up a little bit. so i'm not saying we've turned a corner, fundamentally. also the afghan army and police as i repeatedly saw and heard and saw evidence about my trip last week, the army and police are getting better. but they're not big enough, experienced enough yet. they've got a lot of problems that i would talk about them in greater detail. but that do fight and they hold together as units but they're not ready yet. we're going to need a couple of more years of sustained effort. once we're done with that two or three years, i think we'll wind up in an ok place. probably not a great place but

not a terrible place and not another land that's prone to terrorist sanctuary. and again sequestration gets in the way of that scenario because it cuts ground forces as well as everything else by 2013 and that's too soon. so one more way to take a shot at that scenario that unfortunately, seems likely to unfold in the coming days. thank you all for being here and happy thanksgiving. [applause] >> up next on c-span, presidential candidate newt gingrich of new hampshire weighs on the deficit reduction

committee and his campaign. then a discussion on adoption and foster care programs. and later the u.s. postmaster general talks about the future of the postal service. >> on tomorrow's "washington journal." we'll get an update on what's ahead now that the joint deficit reduction committee has failed to meet a deal before its deadline. we'll talk to humberto sanchez of roll call and david walker. and after that, melanie sloane a citizen's responsibility of ethics in washington on congress and the influence of money. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. and later, a number of conservative organizes will come together to talk about their support for not raising taxes to reduce the federal deficit. we'll hear from americans for prosperity, the tea party patriots, the family research council and citizens united.

live coverage at 10:00 eastern. >> now republican presidential candidate newt gingrich talks to the new hampshire newspaper. he's talked about fees he received after leaving congress from freddie mack and other organizations. this is about an hour. >> it's been very good as you know going around the country. it's joe and gary and the chief editorial writer, and gary's taken on 6,000 new assignments in the last few weeks, and he'll be in the state house bureau for us when he's not here. we said, gary, come down here to do this one. we got some good in-depth interviews with the candidates in the last few weeks, and right off the bat, i want to ask you about what is in the news

overseas, which is the report that perhaps a dozen a informants have been captured and maybe killed in both iran and lebanon. which leads me to ask you what's your reaction to that, and if you were president of the united states, what more would you need before you sanctioned or participated in or helped somebody take out the iran nuclear plants? >> well, i think that our goal should be to replace the regime. i think if you take out the plants, the dictatorship stays there, the plants come back. i would adopt the reagan, pope john paul ii strategy by maximizing every pressure on the regime, ask congress to repeal most of the restrictions on the cia so we can go back to the

real spying. i would have a fund set up to support anybody who was -- thank you -- but i would support any group in the country, as much as we did in poland, elsewhere, and in the cold war. i would be prepared at a point where if we get to a poi where the military believes that they are truly on the verge, and i'd be prepared to use military force, but i'd try before that to do everything i could to disrupt and wake the regime, including, you know, maximizing covert operations inside the country, and i would also be prepared to cut off their gasoline supply. they are unique about lots of crude oil. they only have one major refinery that makes 60% of their gas gasoline, and i would look

at finding ways to impede their refineries, to basically wage economic warfare against them until the regime broke. >> you don't think we're doing that now? >> no, not very effectively. >> what about the internet warfare? >> my guess either we did or the israelis did, and that's good. i mean, i think the next thing you want to see is an israeli effort to break up the whole thing, not just the nuclear part, but for example, go into the bank system, a variety of other places, d break them up electronically to cause division, and we could wage real cyberwarfare against iran and be remarkably effective at closing it down. >> you woul argue -- >> i would do everything we could short of war to replace the regime, and if that failed, i'd sadly agree toilitary action to stop them from getting nuclear weapons. >> you also said, and you said

it to me before, that you think we need to reassess our entire foreign policy military situation as it applies to afghanistan, and elsewhere, which sounds a little like hillary with a reset button. what exactly do you mean by reassess? specifically with regard to afghanistan? >> the strategy for afghanistan does include a strategy for pakistan, and we look at pakistan and realize they were sustaining for t last decade, at least six or seven years, he was in one of the major military cities. you have to assume large elements of pakistan are active, and i think you got to back up and say this is part of why i'm for an american energy strategy. you have to be able take risks in the region that the world's oil supply doesn't currently allow you to take because the disallocation would be so extraordinary. look at the iranians, the saw

-- saudis. we tolerate it because we're afraid to make them mad at us because of energy. >> how do you go after that? first build up -- >> [inaudible] i would say we're going to keep them not gist to be independent, but have a surplus of energy to sell into the world market so you're not frightened so there's two problems. you got, you know, the iranians on one side, the saudis on the other. >> don't like each other? >> that makes it to our advantage, but the threat of the saudis is the spike in price and crippling the world economy, and the iranians close the straits and block t persian gulf. that's why the people surround us. when you face the people who are clearly actively hostile to your

civilization, you have to think seriously about how much pressure you're prepared to be, and the saudi regime is not a strong regime. i will be clear to the saudis that they have to get control over the money spent on this. they have to change the nature of what they are doing. they are exporting which is thee most extreme form all across the world, and we, in effect, are paying for saudi wealth to be used to undermind our own civilization. >> they export it elsewhere hoping to keep the lid on it at home; right? >> right. >> and if you disrupt the saudi kingdom as it now stands, aren't you going to have a hge arab revolt? you see the tunisians now talking about becoming more islamist. you see the libyans now probably

being led by people from n gay cy who are -- ben ghazi, and even a place where we supposedly won, it should disturb every american in iraq after the american victory, quote, unquote, why do 700,000 christians leave a country we win? i think that's why we have to reassess the whole thing. i don't see any great result out of the last dede to lead us to believe we're winning. >> drew, any thoughts on that? do you want to jump into domestic? >> domestic's good. >> domestic's good? okay. in with domestic, harry. >> well, this morning, we're hearing there's not any agreement at all, the supercommittee. number one, did you think that was a good idea in the first place, and number two, what can be done at this point?

>> well, first of all, i said early on, it was the dumbest idea i'd heard of. i mean, to take 535 people who are supposed to represent us declined to 12 so over 90% have no representation, and have them hand picked by political leaders and think they are going to accomplish something? i'm this was an act of desperation by people who couldn't fix anything. i said it up front. i mean, if i were in boehner's shoes, i don't know if i would doany better than boehner because the difference is obama. bill clinton was from arkansas, tried to build a moderate wiping in the democratic party and leadership counsel, spent 12 years negotiating with the conservative legislature, and we could talk, and we understood you got to get something done meaning i got to schedu it, and he's got to sign it. if i won't scheduling it, he's

not signing it, and if he's not signing, we're not getting it. there's not a lot done in the three year period. i don't see any of that happening here. part of it is frankly, being clever. i tried for two or three months no to convince the house republicans to pass the web warner bill to allow for development of oil and gas off virginia. these are two democratic senators, it fits the bill that republicans say they believe in. it provides for 50% of the feds, 37% to the common wealth of virginia, 12.5% to land conservation infrastructure. if they passed with no amendment, send it to the senate, and reid has to decide whether to bottle up two former democrats, and one running for the senate is for the bill. or do we pass it? if they pass it, goes to the white house, and in this economy, does the president veto a bill that creates american

bs and americ energy and revenue for the federal government? that would be an act of suicide. he might, but it would be pretty amazing. >> what's wrong with the sequester that now looms as a result of the super committee? >> well, the idea of cutting $500 billion out of defense is a political exercise. strikes me as crazy. i mean, you ought to design the national security policy around simple things -- what threatens you, what are the goals, and what do you do to achieve the goals, okay? i'm for reforming the pentagon. i mean, i'd apply that, find the mitary caucus in 1981. i think there is waste in the pentagon, but you don't start with a politically defined, this is what the british did in the 1920s, and it came back to haunt them because, you know, you start politically defining it, and you say to the military, well, tough break, you know,

start taking risks. fine, what risks do the president and the congress want us totake? >> phil gramm wrote last week about sequestering, tt most of this from the domestic side, all of it is just cutting back on the increases that we've had in the past few years, and that before 2013 rolls around, a republican congress would repl the defense cutting, is that not something to campaign o >> well, i would campaign on the approval o the defense cutting, but i also say what strikes me is there's three paths. the is the fantasy path that obama's on that leads to greece, and he's been wandering around the country like a 16-year-old with his first credit card. i'm sure he'll bring money in some fm, okay. he says to students, you don't have to pay back the loans, here's an extra billion, and

it's all fantasy. the second pats that washington -- path that washington loaves is painting prosperity. i think there's the third path which is innovation and growth. it's the path that reagan was on, the path we did in the 1990s. strong america now believes if you apply modern management to the federal government, you'd save $500 billion a year. ..

between 70 to $120 billion a year and the americans master cards ibm all of whom believe they would save 95% of that money. that's as much as the super committee is trying to find. case by case the social security plan announced is designed to change trillions of dollars of spending and martin feldstein has argued that, you know, if you had a capital base galt custom system growth is very substantially increased growth. >> what our global what points reviewed today? >> anybody who wants to could

choose a personal system in the savings account. you would build it up over your working lifetime for 14 or 16 and basically th easest model is you are allowed to put your half of the social security tax and to your own savings account the over half goes to sustain the current system. you look at that and it turns out half the amount of the social security built up over ur lifetime comes to to three times. the record of broken galveston and chile. there's no question historic we that over time you do that. we would also keep the guarantee because we would never fall below the social security minimum level. so if you had terrible investment you would sti get the tax paid karen t. in 40 years they never paid a penny.

>> the part time hours would start with cleaning the schools. >> explain this. >> i actually do believe hse places we are endowed by our creator in the pursuit of happiness in the generation bringing it to the very poor so you are in a very poor neighborhood and you have no money and no work habit. so, you're trapped. the first simple thing you can do is redesign the school system so kids can in fact take care of the school. part of the place the got this from as college of the ozarks

which is a terrific work study program and college of the ozarks says you cannot apply unless you need financial aid. they are the fifth most selected right after colombia. the total number they get the account for a very small number. they have no student aid. you work 15 hours a week to 40-hour weeks during the school year and that pays tuition and books. 40 hours a week in the summer but that pays room and board. 92% of the courage of its own. there's an alternative. 8% on average $05,000 because they bought a car the same year and i went around th campus in the brand new library they have a general contractor. all of his workers were students everywhere you went in the school you had people working

most of the clerical work was the students. you now public univrsities which cost more than private universities and you wonder why the price goes up. what if 80% more students per student loans and student work? my life as a part of her financial package in college topped out she had 20 students a week she taught and went to part of her tuition. we have to rethink the roundup. the poorest neighborhoods in america and that means the most important because we think the work ethic. when i talk to the first generation successful people all of them started working they got to have their work, have their money come have savings.

a much longer time horizon to be successful because they started muchearlier. we see people in poor neighborhoods don't work, drop out of school, have no habit of showing up or saying all day. it's not really your money. it's tragic what we've done to the poorest people. >> you menioned the center on health studies there was a report out on a lot of money that the senator has made over the years or a lot of it dealing with is not the government then big business and pharmaceuticals which are dealing with the government and last week i think on one of the six brazillian the dates you were asked about your fee for helping if kody and you initial response was i may historian and it was 300,000 bucks and then eight got up to e point --

>> how much was it in total? >> i think it was 1.6 million. it wasn't paid to me personally the adoptions in three cities and did a lot of different things. i think we had over thecourse of the years involved to think they had 300 pounds of the various places. >> what i am getting it isn't going to be viewed especially if he were to get the nomination as same old same old washington insider gets the money based on his name. you went before the house republican group to argue in vor of, which amazed me, the medicare part b which was the death knell f a lot of republicans winning again. and you saithat was because you wanted to bring them up into the modern age, but there were

no cutbacks with that bill, right? there was more spending. >> created medicare advantage. >> get paid for rich people to have their drugs paidfor. >> at a time when didn't have the money. >> first of all i think to have a medicare program that says we will give you open heart surgery but not lipitor is very destructive. >> understood. i think you have to modernize the system. i offered you but not paying the crux, okay? i'm a cheerful of the dating and the only one has done that for four straight years so i would be happy to walk you through how to balance the budget, but in the case of health care to take the example, ie been a very clear in my positions.

i wrote a book called saving lives and saving money as a moral issue. first you save the life than you save the money. if you can take 40% of the cost of health care. weid a study with the gallup poll and jackson health two years ago and they went out and asked doctors if we came back with this $800 billion a year defensive medicine see you want to talk about saving money in the health care you talk about payment reforms you talk about tom pryce bill to successful people to contract out i would take part of paul ryan's bill and i would do it next year. i would say we are going to have a premium support model has an option you want it you can take it and if you combinthat with tom pryce, some people can come along with really good insurance packages and they are going to opt out so you can create a

medicare plan that has a variety of traces which begins to be i think expensive. >> when you get to the site of paul rollin and's plan that it was too radical. >> i was asked shouldwe impose on the country something the country thinks this deeply unpopular. and didn't reference ryan. >> we are talking about the rye in plan? >> the question i asked said there's a lot of pieces i don't like. the fundamental principle which is when you do something which large, what we are doomed to do withocial security, you have to have a conversation with the country where the country decides that in fact they will accept the change. i am against imposing radical change in the country and i think they've fired you when you do that and they should.

europeans don't want to have any popular vote on any of these reforms because theletes in node they will be repudiated. paul, i like going into a country can be repeated so when we did welfare reform, 92% of the country favored it and we carried have the democrats. one of the reasons obamacare is repealed laws because they get no republican support that matter, they were not capable of getting get back to the senate and they ran it through any way. >> does it make any difference whether the supreme court opposed or rejects obamacare? >> my contract for repealing obamacare line for repealing obamacare no matter what the supreme court does. >> pretty analytical prolifically does it help or hurt the republican nominee, say you -- >> helps repealed, repudiated. it's one more blow at how unconstitutional obama is. >> on the obaacare mandate, the

heritage foundation he said responsibility as mitt romney and you reform that. you see since then you come to different conclusions. i'm curious between then and now at what point do you realize an individual mandate at that level wasn't constitutional? >> i never focused on the federal level. i talked about it at the center of the sate level and what we are trying to solve, and i finally come would you couldn't do it, it is too hard because what it does is it politicizes what do you mean by health care. once you run into mandates you start getting is this an or is that in and what is required you rapidly politize the system from being the doctor patient relationship. what we are trying to get there is the challenge of the fact that in the very significant number of people who are over

$75,000 a year in coming and they are basically taking the position that they are prepared to be a free rider on their neighbors if something happens to them and we have had a psychology of health care frequently peop won't pay their hospital bills. so, as we work with hospitals and the challenge of collecting, people who show up through any other business because they bought a car or bought a house they went on vacation they would just expect to pay it and if for some reason y create this mind set in health care it's a very real probl for hospitals and that is what we are trying to get at is how do you encourage responsibility for people who otherwise -- john goodman has had a model of tha under the inpatient power you get a tax credit if you don't want to take it you don't have to buy

insurance you share the tax credit then sent to the high-risk pool. and if something does happen you are taking care of by the high-risk pool and that means you have to have a double room you don't get a single room and it means a variety of steps. it's a half step towards saying if you don't take care of yourself we will get you basic services but you don't have the right to demand what everybody else has erred because they have been responsibl and they have done the right thing. >> a mandate that the federal level in your view is unconstitutional. why? >> this is something again where the heritage found themselves as you work through it at the time it was designed the more you thought about it the more you realized the congress which can compel you to do something like that can compel you to do anything. what is th limit to the congress power to dictate your life and there will be a hard argument about the supreme court.

>> the known mandate [inaudible] the problem you were raising before is the social security also the proram and health care, obamacare and medicare and medicaid [inaudible] >> there are two pieces. part of - education as we went through this. in 85 the federal means tested programs the amount spent on them is enough if we sent directly on the poor there would be no poor left. what he's calling them now the empire in the welfare state

which is all the bureaucrats are living, managing all the regulations and all the structures for 185 federal programs. so when you start block granting that the savings are extraordinary. second, there is no evidence washington knows how to solve any of these problems. when we do health care reform we are driving and the only speaker who's actually brought in state governors and state technical people and put them in the draft room so the federal drafters actually involves the people who actually implement the bill. the whole federal attitude of why are these guys here. >> you mentionedbefore clinton dealt with the legislature. you were also a historian whether you like it or not and

history tells me the people who get to be president are destined for most governors senator ve rarely if ever a member of the house of representatives, so what is it in your background that is going to convince the americ people that on like all of these governors who got caught there with real experience dealing with these problems that you can do it? you can probably argue james capel is the only speaker of the house to get there. and he had actually been the governor of tennessee. i think if you look at the scale of what we did in the 90's, you look at the size of the contract with america campaign in the 360 districts you look at actually getting the balanced budgets and will form enacted. i have a fair amount of management experience when i step down i had to enforce my

companies and some business experience much smaller nonetheless the business experience and frankly people who felt i was did in june and july would have to confess we are voting in the previous campaign and we now have the five offices in new hampshire and five to seven in south carolina and so in terms of management skills i have a reasonable track record of having done that. i also think that if you wat to change washington what you need is a leader who can attract managers. it's different from being a manager. the job of a president is t the head of the american government in that order. and the biggest job actually is to communicate with and educate and set standards for the american people.

>> whether that means herman can deal with the complexity of congress and federal budget i was very fortunate to step down first because clinton appointed me to the commission she and i had created together so i spent three years of the national security ac 200and then when bush became a in with friends like tommy thompson and human services, rumsfeld, georgia the cia got me deeply involved in the executive branch so i actually spent six years on a pro bono basis inside the executive branch and the strategy and rethinkin the system so i have had more insight experience trying to understand how problems are solved and what works and what esn't work and any one of the legislative branch of the same time 20 years in the legislative branch saw a pretty good understanding of that branch and

the question we have to ask is look at the available candidates. who has anything like this in the national experience and send, the background of the national security to work with 79 and worfor the defense department in general since the early 80's and the foreign policies. >> when the third countries looking you mentioned insider, the inside experience the involvement of these government agencies ad people are fed up with anything from washington and looking for something ele. >> the reason is they are mature enough to say okay i want somebody whose values are a outside washington who actually knows about washington to be effective and the just tried three years of amateurs and i

think you can make a pretty good case that hiring somebody that doesn't know what he's doing is hasn't been a big win. >> the editorial for welcoming the president. >> so to make a good case on the one hand i had the experience, on the other hand quickly my values, my positions, if you look at the contract with america.org it is clearly an outsider document it is an outsider attitude >> it's rather unusual it seems and that you have become your own worst critic on your web site by bringing out charges of both personal and professional attempting to answer them. were they going to come out anyways? >> we are having a national conversation which i think is

the biggest waste since 1860. i think this is an extraordinary moment in american history. an you either believe in the american people which i did, or you don't. you believe in the american people then you have to say anybody can ask anything they want because i am asking them to lend me the power to be president of the united states and therefore they have every right to say tell me about this, tell me about that. rather than half msnbc distort something with no answer i would say if you have any questions, right here on move toward and here are the answers and make of lowercase this, you know because you guys reported a job in number of them are justplain false. here are the facts. i have tremendous faith from the

american people sorting through this coming up with a reasonable conclusion. >> the facts are too short changed positions. dr mentioned theealth care option making people buy the insurance even though we was at the state level and you were famously on the couch with somebody talking about climate change and there have been others over a long career. the big charge against mitt romney is he is a flip-flopper. if he is, isn't new gingrich a flip-flopper? >> i don't think so. my career rating is 90%. >> i think that is relatively high. my record of balancing the budget is the only person to have done it in your lifetime, my position on the national

security back in 1979 my record of wanting to cut taxes and working goes back to the mid 70's. now i would say two things. one is sometimes things change. i voted for the department of education in 1979. i wouldn't vote for it today. gist i've looked at how it's evolved. life looked at the national education establishment, and my conclusion is you need a very, very dramatic changes. plus the 32 years ago. on other things i've been relatively stable and a couple things i just made a mistake. it is truly the dumbest thing i've done in the four or five years because she is so radioactive just literally you can't explain that. second, i'm probably not going to meet your standards but i

don't know about the climate change. there are a lot of grit to double standards, there are a number of standards to say that it's not real speech tuesday night to the truth is the climate change the fact is 1978 indicating become an ice age i was recently at the field museum in chicago looking at dinosaurs in the antaric. if there are dinosaurs in the antarctic there is no -- >> they wouldn't call you a dinosaur though. >> the campaign of newt and proud to be here.

>> [inaudible] >> how was your help? >> i work seven days a week working for president i probably put in 100 hours -- >> how was your blood pressure, how is everything? okay this is the strangest thing you not only decided to be a catholic but a golfer, but are you, nuts? >> i've tertian to catholicism with my golfing. no, my wife's golf since she was lying and the only person i gulf with and if there was a way to go out and be away from telephones it is a nice walk in the woods and i may truly bad golfer. i have no investment in my golf psychologically committed >> good otherwise it will eat you up. who is the president who golfed the most? >> by reputation, eisenhower.

>> willson. he did the game and his dr. mix prescribed it after his first initial mild stroke and he played every morning, naim holes, he did it. >> eisenhower was one of the better ones but the best one was kennedy. i never thought of kennedy as a golfer. >> nobody confused my game for serious golf. >> the mengin your answers on the websitone of the points you bring out in the ethanol mandate it's for all of the above energy policy that's part of it and you would rather have energy from on the above than

from the persian gulf, but then whdoes it follow that the federal government has to subsidize it? can the government just get out of the way -- >> the government retains saying most people in the business now don't think the tax subsidy is going to survive. there are two questions. everybody get a big oil will give you this. ifbama comes and says let's get rid of the ten to 14 billion in the oil eemptions would you let anybody jump up in the business? annuity that has tried to kill ethanol on behalf of the world probably jumped up and said -- and half right by the way and i am against in fact apply

overwhelmingly to the sll independents who knew all the exploration in the field. on the one hand they understand exacy why they want the subsidy for oil so this isn't a purity this is a practicality. you have two sources of energy fighting each other to keep the small indepeents to find oil and gas in fact i want to open federal land o be able to find oil ad gas. north dakota all of the development on private land and the reason north dakota has 92 per cent unemployment is the bolten field formation has tried 25 times bigger, 2500 per cent figure in the u.s. geological survey thought it was. >> [inaudibl >> i voted for ethanol and gas

in 1984 when ronald reagan signed it and in 86 when he signed it and in 1998 and helped it survive. my record on this the position let me be very clear about this i had a very successful speech business. i had a very successful general business. there isn't a ingle position taken that involves bnp i'm happy if people who like my positions and no cases on know of where i say please, don't pay me, but in fact these are all positions i have had over a long public career. so in that sense they said we are concerned would you give us advice and i said sure. >> what exactly where your company speed for to do by

freddie mac? >> largely strategic advice and i think in one article 1 of them says that. the lobby for the strategic advice. i read a book called the art of transformation which is a pretty good introduction to how you get very large scale change, and our specialty was talking people, listening to people tell what their problems were and then trying to help them think through how they could solve what they are up against. in the case of housing tenth and starti in the mid 80's on how do you help your people get into housing and there is a conservative way to do with which is to teach them budgeting and how to take care of their hoe, there is a kind which allows relatively poor people to own homes and be successful at it. you don't just hand them money to buy a house that they don't

understand, etc. triet support if it is how would you think seriously about meeting these goa, how would you try to do it? >> one of the directors quote to the story recently saying we were hoping he would write something in support of the model and get conservatives and republicans on board but i don't think that ever happened. was that communicated to you? >> again, the government sponsored enterprise goes all the way back to the founding of amera. they have not necessarily -- they can e useful. noeth rational person is going to advocate creating a bubble. that is to teach economic history i know the book miniet crashes pretty well and the fact something is good if you do that after this point but in sing and if you commit to this point doesn't mean suggesting you do that to this point puts you over

here. dividing we ought to try to find ways to halt the relatively poor people in the united states? of course. does that mean we ought to create a bubble and have people trapped in poverty? no. so i think that there is a big difference. >> were you in a psition to see the bubble coming? did you write about it? i think if you go back and look at my peeches it wasn't obvious at the starting and initially it wasn't fannie mae and freddie mac. it was things like countrywide but the minute he started getting people with no credit, no money down, these things are in same. i would say that consistently because again, people would come to say -- first of all i had no access to the internal information. i wasn't on the board of directors, i wasn't brought in

with the general votes. anybody who had said to me do you think we should be giving the following five things i would say no. these are all the things in fact dodd and frank wanted done and thother difference which doesn't seem s i wasn't in congress. i was a private citizen. private citizens are allowed to be in business, a totally different operation. i checked with for a sample rosio and the reform bill passed against the opposition levels and said they always supported these reform efforts and never mentioned fanny or freddie to him and so in my public role i think i was very clear about where i was going and what i was doing and it's very important to understand that. as a private adviser, had they come to me and, again, every

time somebody says to me here's what's happening which will be occurring pretty late i would have said this is unsustainable because if you state economic history is just clearly not possible to do this. so, to examples a good friend of mine who's a very successful investor in the early 1989 we worked on all and the ground of the japanese had approximately the same lue as thetate of florida and said in a passing that is a bubble. he sold everything that he had in japan just before the.k. crash and its a random conversation. it doesn't take much to figure out they are not going to be

sustainable. >> they are going to be getting out of whack on the education part which you mentioned. you have sort of a long list of education ideas, reform ideas, one of the pell grants for the k-12 and the charter ideas and then on your web site at the end you say that you are going to shrink the education department to as small as you can get to read the pell grant for k-12 doesn't that further the federal government? all of those are -- >> i want to draw a distinction on the president's role as the leader of the american people and say here are 12 things i hope the state government does and the leader of the president's manager of the federal government and different les ronald reagan understood this thoroughly as the leader of the country i can advocate a series of things for it satellite think every state should adopt a law that says states will encounter the

declaration of independence every year that they are in school. i don't think the federal government should but i would actively avocate that in every single state because the declaration of independence is central to who we are as a people. speaking would be data collecti analysis and -- spec all of the federal dollars, you've got lunch programs and subsidies. >> school lunches and used part but if agriculture. you would have to make a sepate distinction about whether in fact -- remember we went to school with a world war ii because of the malnutrition. originally sponsored by richard russell who was pretty conservative because so many young men were incapable of serving in world war ii because of basic health problems and the was the original theory behind date and i haven't taken the

position on school lunch and something i don't think about but i think you'd be cautious before you automatically jump off the cliff and sage we are going to disband its. is that a problem do we need to take a look at? >> a small percentage is growing but i would argue that if you're to go to the average school if you would take from new hampshire how much the federal regulation costs you how much time do you spend filling out forms it's like when you talk to doctors about the number they now hire to fill out the forms federal aid also meant federal regulations you might finit was more of a break even than you think. >> in manchester e can't -- some 70 languages almost a spoken in the school system that want to take the state's and not

test them for federal testing for a year or two but we can't. >> that is inaccessible something that is just crazy. if you have someone that shows up from ethiopia or somalia or cambodia and say i'm glad you've been here six months let's test you and they get average into the schools -- the second part of that is i'm adamantly in favor of english being the official language of the government and in favor of all people 60 o 70 languages. i think in nursing in english is the first step towards prosperity. >> in te gingrich administration we have now currently every now and then they will pop up because there's some government documents in miami and some printed in spanish or california and texas

>> you have the department to print the voting documents in every language in the country. theoretically in california i forget the total number of languages to print the voting ballot in but it is an absurd. >> what have the evan patrician -- >> english. >> mr. speaker, in that cabinet of yours you've been talking about good when and the rivals so where would you put their rival mitt romney in the team? >> governor mitt romney is an extraordinarily competent manager with an immense amount about business and finance and has a wide range of possibilities. >> when i suggested that to him -- the part about him serving in the tam of rifles. >> that might have just about

the serving his team of rifles. none of us want to. we got into this because somebody said the other day what do unequivocally say no to the vice president and following ronald reagan in 1976 he said he was really glad that ford didn't offer it because he wasn't sure how you would turn on the president. i said to clarify gingrich must think that -- this is back when i was like eight per cent he must think he's not going to get the nomination. so, he is the front runner or should we think anything less than winning the nomination. >> i guess no good reason have you got a campaign now you said you have eight staffers here and eight in iowa. he's got a great future in this business. he's a very good natural

political leader. >> so you don't have to pay him. to complement him nicely. do you have a campaign to sustain yourself with? that historians have to finish in new hampshire to go on with any ope of winning the nomination. >> we got to be the top three in iowa and new hampshire. i would like to be first in online and in new hampshire and we will see, but i think if we go south and i'm a viable candidate i would win the south carolina, and i think that changes for florida. so, to me these are important building blocks. what we don't know yet is whether one of us can run the

table, you know, in which case it gets over early or better because of proportional representation of what happened to hillary and obama and still struggling with that in may and june and i think you have to prepare for both u.s. to say it's te i like to be the best i can in all the early primaries but i have to have the ability to assist in the campaign all the way. >> when you say top three in this team states and my lai and new hampshire ron paul seems like of a wild card in this film. is wrong paul -- should he be viewed as one of the regular republicans? i mean he has his followings in his positions. >> he may do surprisingly well. >> certainly as we learn more about how bad the federal reserve is and how much money if it is thrown around the plan that he has a better se in the

foreign policy it's a little bit harder for people to accept but i think that ron paul is going to depending on the turnout and i applaud it could be significant the bigger the primary. i think that he will be reported as a factor. >> he's also said he won't rule out the third party. >> i saw him on tvd of the morninghe said flat he would not run. he said he wouldn't automatically guarantee the republicans so he might be passing that h said what he wouldn't run as a candidate. >> you caught up with this on the internet where the former bush campaign official claims to have $24 million to ge on the ballot in 50 states and the you're going to have the process of the six most likely

candidates with internet voting and then put one on the? >> if we nominate somebody that is reasonably articulate and clearly conseative no third-party ticket will because people will walk in and say let me get this straight i can beat obama or vote to re-elect obama and if i don't vote for the only major candidate against obama i just voted to re-elect him and will be the tendency this year in a modern times because the desperate desire to beat obama is great. that is the biggest that i have because if you say to people who would you like to see beat obama overwhelmingly they would say the. i was leaving des moines in the other day and of a woman that was checking said we are so excited about your idea.

my husband and i are already planning the debate parties. i thought that was an encouraging sign. >> do you have any follow-up or are we all set? then it is who had the best third prty and it didn't do the republicans any good. >> he was a unique figure. >> woodrow wilson to the system again this year give us obama. >> i found out with a son-in-law was. i didn't know that. the provision series which was great. thank you for coming. we will no doubt be covered in your social security. come back when you get a chance. >> thank you. will that make c-span happy.

one of my major goals >> seymour videos of the candidates had c-span's website ford campaign 2012. link to c-span media partners in the early primary and caucus states, iowa, new hampshire, and south carolina, all at c- span.org/campaign2012. >> president obama travels to new hampshire tomorrow to talk about his jobs bill. new hampshire will hold the first presidential primary on january 10, 2012. the president will visit central high school in manchester. we will have live coverage of 1215 eastern. >> from miami book fair international last weekend -- jamme>> the cia came to recruit

exiles who participated in the invasion of cuba. after castro came into power, people who did not like him very much fled cuba, and where they fled to was mainly right here in miami. >> race is still the devil of american life. of course, the election of the first black american president was a landmark. it shows tremendous change in american racial attitudes. had there not been that change, he would have had no hope of prevailing. >> in the presidential debate, it is critical that you hear -- and it is hard to relax and that situation. but you have to be calm and not -- in nothing make split-second decisions. do they move on? do i follow up? what do i do now? >> watched coverage online at

the c-span video library. archive and searchable. watch what you want when you want. now discussion on the adoption and foster care programs. this is 40 minutes. host: thank you for being here. how long has the federal government help pay for adoption and foster care? guest: the most significant investment began in 1965, making small help. adoption and foster care in the 1980's, the federal government began to realize that children

were spending a lot of time in foster care and there were not having good outcomes. they started his been more on programs that serve them getting into families with adoptions. they had made a real investment of the last decade. host: we have the only ones for you to call. -- phone calls for you to call. let's talk about the flow of money. the progress the cut to states, what happens? >> $25 billion spent on the services. about half of that money actually comes from the federal government. the majority of that funding comes from two huge streams of

funding. the first one is called foster care maintenance. that allows for states to be able to provide shelter, food, education programs for youths actually in the foster care system, payments to the foster care families, and in the other amount of money is from adoption systems. they are able to find a family through the efforts of the state and the state can also find help to provide assistance such as sibling groups, making the house ready for a new group of 3 or four kids. maybe adjusting homes for those types of things. host: these numbers are coming to us from health and human services.

we will talk about the chafee independence program. guest: even though we are putting his money into foster care, a renewed effort to fund the children into adoption, we were not making the grade for all of our kids. about 30,000 kids leave that foster care system, not returning to their biological families are not adopted by a new family. so the congress thought we needed to do something about that. they're going out into the world on their own and we need to make sure they have services that would do with many of our parents did for us. learning about on a par and and you're on, applying for college. -- applying for an apartment on year-round, applying for colleges.

help them grow into adults without having a family around them. and then provide tuition assistance for college. for a voucher to go to college. host: more numbers. guest: the with both of those programs work is based on the number of children that are in those settings. one of the things that is at debate for many advocates is that are we doing enough with our federal dollars to match our policies. congress said that too many children wind up in foster care and spend too many years in the system. so that put in place a lot of good policies, and while those policies that have been working well, some of the concern has been funding, more invested in

the maintenance of children in foster care. this matters is if i am a state administrator, i wanted to the right thing and put children in the permanent families. but with all the dollars that the federal government says to me are aligned in a different direction, it makes the task difficult. host: mike is calling us from illinois. he is a member of a foster family. caller: a lot like to say thanks to c-span for the reading of the constitution. it was awesome. my comment, i was in five foster homes. i thought the best part of it was the independent living program, geared toward the teenage kids that are hard to place. they provided them with an apartment and living expenses

and that would check on them. i thought that was a big part of giving a kid on his own. the independent living program in illinois was run by a methodist youth services. i thought was a big part of the foster care. how old were you when you went into foster care? caller: 07 years old. -- i was 7 years old. the family had six of their own kids and seven foster kids. that tree died, the way that they treated their kids, that was a really big plus. guest: the federal government is trying to put that stuff into place. one thing i heard him say was that he felt like the independent living program

allowed him to learn about the critical skills he would need as an adult. i also heard him say something that congress is looking at, he had a good foster family which at that time was also able to provide him the love and support he needed to use those skills and become the person he is today. host: he went through four or five foster families. guest: the foster care system by many accounts is broken. we find that many kids, particularly older children, will bounce around from home to home. some people just last weekend spent every six months moving from one home to another. it is not surprising when you think about that and people have trouble in school. they're going to 16 different placements and cut of five different high schools. it is hard to keep your grades up. host: our caller was 7 years old when he went into foster care.

the average age is nine years old. the average length of stay is 14 months. these numbers come to us from september of last year. guest: one of the things we've seen of the last decade is that there have been more investments in helping states to use the funding for preventing than foster care and working with families in getting at the reasons they end up having to put their children into foster care. we have been able to reduce the number of children, 400 aid is down. equally exciting is that we see a number of children adopted out foster care going up. those of the trends that people like to see continue. host: some more numbers. the average age of children going into adoption situations are eight years old. the average weight in foster care before officially adopted,

28 months. guest: those are good things and we would like to see the federal funding of line is up to do that. host: katy is right here in washington. caller: my son was adopted from foster care and i was able to, because of the funds i got from the state and the government. we did not know his parents were. he still has medical assistance and we get some help from the state. we are still discovering some issues. but i really love him and i am glad that i was able to get them. guest: all wonderful morning. we get to hear of a great success stories. it's important for viewers to hear. some people think that once the adoption becomes final, held no longer exists. we know from personal experience they not only exist but they can actually get to be greater as the young person gets older and some of their needs increase. it is great to hear that in your

story you could use that funding to continue to help a lot -- help love and support your son. host: and he is from an adoptive family in missouri. -- amy is from an adoptive family missouri. caller: we were able to travel to washington to come out and have our voice be heard on capitol hill about adoption issues. host: why were you chosen for that? caller: we have three adopted children, one from foster care. he was born into cocaine and had several health issues. we were able to adopt m -- him through foster care for the main thing now like to get out is that adoption does not have to be as expensive as it is. adoption their u.s. foster care

is a fabulous to. i do not think people realize that you can adopt a child and it does not have to be all light expense. -- unlike expense. -- a life expense. i still think that people are not aware of that. guest: and me as one of the 1800 people that we of honor and there are angels and adoption program. it is one of the ways we tried educate members of congress about the continued need for more policies. amy was confessing to a raise -- raising awareness in the general community. many of them are waiting for someone to step up and adopt them. too few people know about that if they were interested in starting. i would like amy and her family

to come to washington in october. we bring them here and they put dissipate in all sorts of activities. it is a great program. host: what is the requirement for people receiving funds when they decide to become adoptive or foster families? guest: they will go to a criminal background check and home studies. those are not meant to discourage, although sometimes they do, people from stepping up to, adopted in foster families. it is to make sure they can provide a safe and good placement for the chao, but more importantly, that they are prepared, if that they understand that often a child out of foster care may be one -- may be one that has has a history of abuse and neglect, there things that they may encounter as parents that they have not encountered even if they have parents did before. if and walk them through the

ways that the foster care system is designed to assist those families. not to say that they may never need the services, but to make sure that they know that the services it status. another great resource that the federal government has put into place is a website, adoptuskids. people to get on-line and find a child that they thought was in need and are quickly able to find information to adopt a particular child. host: our next caller is taught on the democrats lined in south carolina. -- todd on the democrats' line in south carolina. caller: i was in the foster care system over 30 years ago. when i was in there, the foster parents, they did not get paid like they do now. they drew a stipend per child and it was like $200 a month.

i was only in 40.5 years. it was supposed to be two weeks. re 2.5 years.thei the difference is that you only had to go into training for one year in the state of georgia be a foster care parents. and i applaud the updated training. it is now apparent with all of the legalities and stuff. and the bad parents. there are their parents in the system still. each state is trying to weed them out and i applaud the foster care system for what they did to me. in a, i only had four good families and i was lucky. and their people today they have gone all of them -- their lives between 20 or 30 families.

90% of the more bet families. i applied -- i applaud what you're doing for you are doing a good job in the foster care system. guest: we're trying to create more successes like we heard this morning. it's encouraging to hear you talk about your experience. a one of the couple one thing that you said. some expect that their time will be very brief and the needs of their families can be corrected quickly. as you're saying, that does not always occur. host: the child would think that the family could provide for them in the near term. thymine only need to go in for a couple of weeks and then go back to their family. -- they might only need to go in for a couple of weeks and then go back to their family. guest: they might be dealing with drug abuse or of all views issues.

it is unpredictable how well the parent responds and how quickly they can move to recover. sometimes that is what happened. one thing todd raised, one of the challenges that continues is that for 400,000 children in foster care, we have 100,000 foster parents. one of the issues that states face with the quality of foster parents is that there are more people listed to be far stepparents then the name, you can do better screening. not that they take everyone that comes into line, but you want to make sure that i child is in a family rather than an institution. if you can recruit the types of people that we want to be taking that step, it is easier to make sure the state is doing well by foster care.

host: how does the money breakdown between what the state kicks and curses the federal government? -- kicks in versus the federal government? guest: it will include foster care and adoption assistance that we talked about before. it might cover the taxes services that states are providing the family said they do not need to put their child in foster care. it might cover some of the things that we know cause children to be put into foster care, as i said, something like substance abuse or child care is another issue where families put their kids at risk. but we know about it is interesting. the state portion actually changes over time. it is different from state to state. in some states, the federal share is less than 50% and

others, the state is only providing 20%. host: michael joins us from new jersey. democrats line. caller: i was calling in regard -- i'm not sure she is familiar with the october 25 npr investigation on cultural bayh's the the foster system. -- cultural bias in the foster system. it has been found that south dakota has taken in a disproportionate amount of native american children from their homes and they seem to be getting grants from the federal government to put kids in the foster care. it just seems like it is an unfair situation and i'm not sure if you are familiar with

that. guest: i am not only aware of it, but as an issue. it is one that many members of congress are looking into. all we want to make sure is that the child welfare system, when they get a report of abuse or neglect, when they are sending out social workers, that they send out someone who is trained, who is able to receive the training that they can go into home and make a good assessment about whether a child is actually at risk, and as you pointed out, the standards by which those social workers are using are fair and appropriate. there have been suggestions not only for native americans but for african-american and hispanic children that some of the standards being used by some systems might not actually understand some of the differences between different cultures. for instance, as you pointed out, sometimes in certain cultures, having extended

families live in the same house is very common. you'll have a grandparent or maybe cousins living in the same house. it is a program to have a standard where we basically say, this many people in the house versus whether it would be of use are not. something that congress and the states are looking into. host: more numbers from the department of health and human services. this is from last year. guest: that as one of the things that the caller was raising that we want to let get. we want to make sure not only our making sure the standards makes sense but as i talked about before, what can we be doing to make sure that families are strong in general in every community? some of the things that we know

lead to a of family getting a job remove from their care be eliminated. of a struggling to find work? so they put their children in a compromising situation. so many kids come in the foster care, estimated about 60%, because of neglect. that means that maybe mom has been out of odd jobs for six months and so they sleep in a car. that is not necessarily a good thing for that child to be sleeping in a car, especially with the weather turning cold, but is a loving mother who wants to do the best? if all she needs is a helping hand to make sure that she gets the job, that is something that it takes to figure out. host: marker comes to us from an adoptive family in knoxville, tennessee. caller: my mother adopted a child out of foster care. we receive the job when she was 14 months old. we have now adopted her.

but no money followed this child from jacksonville, florida. all she got wasn't quite sure- year college tuition. as far as her daily needs, there was no money. if she comes from another foster parent before we got hurt? my understanding is that that foster money what's -- mother was collecting money. but when it came to us, there was no money.

ñ???/úpq

how do we find other ways to bring pressure against iran on issues that this regime actually believes important to it? sanctions have not been able to accomplish that. i would urge the subcommittee to hold additional hearings on of the ways that the united states might bring pressure in areas beyond the economy, which are not unimportant, but clearly will not get us where we want to

be. >> if i could follow on what dr. pollack said, we talk about sanctions. i think human rights sanctions have played a consequential role. particularly in focusing world attention on the fast system of oppression that the iranian regime has set up. i think human rights sanctions are also important because under u.s. law today, we should be shanks' sending companies providing tools of oppression to the iranian regime. they're providing technology and parts of components to the iranian nuclear industry, and so it is counter proliferation sanctions coming human-rights sanctions, and we have the ability to be much more rigorous in enforcing existing law. start with cutting the tools of oppression being sold to the regime, selling multimillion-

dollar hardware units, software to help the regime target iranian dissidents, roll them up, tortured them, and kill them. that would be a good place to start the on economic sanctions. >> thank you. >> with the concurrence of the rest of the members, i think we will move to the second panel. unless members have additional questions. we want to thank you for your expertise, for your participation here today. again, i any additional comments you wish to share with the committee, we would welcome them. we'll stand in recess while we changed the second panel. -- change to the second panel.

>> committee will come back in the session. we will move to our second panel and recognize mr. adham zubin, mr. henry wooster and mr.: call and pursuant to will committee rules, the witnesses will please rise and raise their right hand. do you solemnly swear or turn that the testimony you're are about to give will be the truth, poultry, and nothing but the truth. but the record reflect that all the answers -- all the

witnesses answered in the affirmative. we would appreciate if you limit your verbal testimony to five minutes and we will certainly some of your old testimony into the record and i will start with recognizing mr. zubin for five minutes. becausthank you >> for the opportunity to discuss the treasury department contribution to the strategy to address iran and the threat posed by iran's nuclear program and its extensive support for terrorism. i'm pleased to be here with deputy assistant secretary wooster, because the progress we have made has been a collaboration. those threats are very rare. -- real. we are pressing hard on multiple fronts. the treasury department has impose sanctions over 230 individuals and companies tied

to iranian human rights violations, wmd pour operation, and terrorist facilitation very big extended the impact of these actions with our allies and in jurisdictions where iran has operated the starkly. we of focused on key actors in commercial sector set of bands their illicit activities internationally and represent real vulnerabilities for iran. the irgc and is expanding company -- network of companies, the iranian banks that have served as agents for proliferation and terrorist activities, and their international transportation arm including its national maritime carrier and its two largest airlines, which have facilitated the movements of weapons, funds, and personality -- and personnel. our efforts were powerfully advance by congress with the enactment last year of the comprehensive our runs sufficient accountability and

investment act. it presented a stark choice of foreign institutions to willing to do business with iranian banks of the irgc beer you can do business with these rogue actors or with the united states, not both. we've taken this message to over 45 countries now. we have made the successful point that these actors should have no access to the formal financial system. the message has been heard. whereas a few years ago the united states was the only jurisdiction in the world to restrict dealing with iranian banks, today there largest banks are troubling -- struggling to main access in accounts in any bank in any country. they have all impose sanctions with a real buy against iranian financial institutions above and beyond the un security council resolution. banks across the world have

severed their ties with blacklisted entities. in the meantime, we have intensified our forssmann efforts at home to ensure that our sanctions are being fully implemented by u.s. persons and companies doing business here. in august, we concluded the largest sanctions settlement in our history with a u.s. financial institution in which jpmorgan chase settle alleged violations of the program. increasingly come we act in concert with other u.s. government and law enforcement agencies to penalize and deter sanction violators. in february we joined in a public announcement with the justice department, commerce to permit, the fbi, and other agencies in the criminal indictment and the designation of a network for illegal supply of specialized metals from the united states to entities involved in the ballistic missiles programs. in other coordinated action, which a public fashion with the

department of commerce and the justice department against an aviation group for its illegal export of a boeing 747 to iran and obtained a $15 billion settlement of that country. we announced a joint civil and criminal resolution with congressman's bureau against sunrise technologies which exported computer related goods from the u.s. to iran through dubai. it is coordinated agency actions demonstrated that concerted impact we can have one week on its authority across the government. laurel, our strategy is yielding significant results. run as never before been as isolated in this leaders are worried. i'll be glad to expand further on the impact if the committee so desires. of course there's still much to be done. we have yet to see the needed action by the iranians to comply with international obligations. working with our colleagues across the administration and with congress, we will seek to

further deepen their isolation and increase the pressure on his leadership to alter their course. we thank you for your continued support in seeking to apply the most effective pressure possible. thank you. >> thank you. mr. wooster, you're recognized for five minutes. >> chairman checketts, ranking member tierney, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here to discuss the policy toward iran and the progress we've made since january 2009. the key objective the administration's policy is to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. our foremost priority. from supporting terrorism, from committing human rights abuses, and from destabilizing the region. we have an act of the toughest sanctions at around half policies making their current course unsustainable. reducing its options, deepening its isolation. indeed, iran is an outcast among nations. the u.s. comprehensive has been

vital to ride chilling up pressure on iran. ci as thatsada of shutdown funding for its nuclear programs and related a list of activities. investments and technical assistance in the upstream oil and gas sector have dropped dramatically. we have sanctioned 10 foreign companies involved in their energy sectors and dissuaded companies like shell, and others from continuing or undertaking sanctionable activities in iran. major energy traders from russia, india, turkey, france, and the netherlands have pop -- stop sales of refined of all products to iran. as mine ofa describedc, we have designated entities that support or facilitate terrorist and other activities. last month we designated five individuals for their

involvement in iran pause plot to assassinate the saudi ambassador in the united states. others have already taken or will take similar actions against these individuals. a policies have been effective in sharpening the choices before the regime. as the president recently admitted to the iranian parliament, which government can work under so much pressure? this is the heaviest economic onslaught on a nation in history. we are compact in -- we're committed to the p5 plus 1 framework provided it is prepared to discuss seriously its nuclear program. until then we will work with other nations on sanctions measures. the latest iaea report on iran's nuclear program deepens our concerns and we're consulting with our allies on how to respond to this week's court -- board of governors meeting in -- extending to its human-rights

abuses. in response to others seem's systematic campaign of violence and intimidation against protesters in 2009, we designated 11 individuals and three entities for egregious human-rights violations and we continue to compile evidence to designate the worst abusers. for the past eight years, we of cosponsored un resolution calling iran to account for its human-rights abuses. last year this resolution passed but the largest margin to date. in march, we have created the position of the special rapporteur on iran, shining a spotlight on the repression of its own citizens. we equip iranian civil society with training and media access, counter censorship tools, and exchanges to help iranians defend their fundamental rights and freedoms. turning to the broader region, we acknowledge the concerns that our military withdrawal from iraq will allow iran to expand its influence.

however, we also know most iraqis reject their interference. iraqi leaders have rebuffed iranian political pressure and prime minister maliki has said he will not tolerate the violent activities. iraq is diversifying in developing relationships with eu countries and regional players appeared in october, the iraqi prime -- foreign minister stress, no other party can fill the vacuum except the people of iraq in the government of iraq. we're working with the iraqi security forces to strengthen their capabilities beyond 2011. we're helping iraq establish credible public institutions to protect the sovereignty and independence. in closing, this administration expense -- expanding tools,

destabilizing the regime. the region. sanctions are having an effect. with the aim of compelling the iranian regime to change is to teach calculus, we will work with congress and our allies to increase pressure. responsibility and its self-interest to join the international community of nations. until then, it only faces growing isolation and condemnation. thank you once again. look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. worcester. i will now recognize dr. ka provide ministerhl >> i appreciate the opportunity to prepare before you today to discuss the department of defense possible in the policy toward iran. as you know, the president has made iran one of his very top security priorities. the defense department played a supporting role in our dual track approach of engagement on one hand and pressure on the other. that is led by the state department and the treasury

department. however, a supporting role should not be interpreted by anyone as a minor role. in support of interagency efforts to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and other destabilizing efforts, we focused on four main lines of effort. ensuring israel's security, building partnerships and capacities in the region, developing a regional security architecture, especially in the gulf, and proven defense planning. indian with a first, israel. on iran represents a significant threat to israel. and as of this threat, we are working closely with the israelis to develop multi lower rigid multilayer military -- missile defense. our relationship is strong and enduring three based on joint military exercises and continued cooperation of secretary panetta

and gates have called the relationship with israel stronger than ever. we regularly consult with israel and maintain a very frank defense dialogue. we continue unprecedented cooperation with their defense forces to ensure that the qualitative military edge extends all and future threats. israel is the only nation in the region they will receive fifth generation aircraft. another sign is your support for president obama's request for more weapons systems. i and dome has proved effective in the region -- iron dome has already proved effective in the region. we also continue to work of our partners elsewhere in the region did build capacity to resist the

destabilizing activities. we will complete the drawdown of u.s. forces in iraq in accordance with the security agreement. some have expressed said kent -- concerns that we're leaving a vacuum to fill. however there is no vacuum. iraq has emerged as an increasingly saban -- stable and sovereign nation. it has no desire to be dominated by iran or anyone else. they have shown their willingness to resist the iranians when they ever reach pre as iraq bosc economy continues to grow, we expect their self-confidence will grow as well. they have made clear that they have a strong desire for an enduring relationship and strategic partnership with united states, including robust security cooperation. as we pursue this partnership under the strategic framework agreement. the recent decision for the iraqi to purchase at-15 aircraft

is one sign of their continued desire to maintain a relationship with us. continued security ties through our security cooperation in baghdad and military sales and theater engagement activities will deepen this partnership in the years ahead. semele in lebanon, we work to strengthen their institutions and its ability to exercise sovereignty over all others in its territory. since 2008, the in addis states has been committed to helping the lebanese armed forces counter terrorist within lebanon, secure their borders, and work alongside the un to implement all u.n. resolutions. the u.n. is working with its

gulf partners to develop a security architecture. these initiatives include a regional network of ballistic missile defenses, shared early warning defense, piracy efforts, and projects to harden and protect our partners critical infrastructure. we currently have substantial missile assets and a number of gulf nations to protect from the iranian missiles. we maintain a robust theater engagement and exercise schedule. as we improve our bilateral and multilateral cooperation, we are working to build the capabilities of our partners. the middle east accounts for a large part of our worldwide activity, particularly with saudi arabia, uae, and iraq. these five countries account for more than $66 billion in funds. let me turn to our planning. when it comes to iran, there are no overnight solutions and we know that many of our

diplomatic, economic, and other cooperation efforts are beginning to bear fruit. at the same time, we know that iran has not ceased its proliferation activities or support for terrorism. for that we region -- for the region, we continue to repair on all fronts. it is our duty to plan for all contingencies and provide the president of wide range of military options should they become necessary. it is a duty that we take seriously. the president has not taken any options off the table when it comes to iran. at this time, diplomacy and pressure remain the most effective tools for changing their behavior. with that, i think -- i thank you once again. >> i know this is a very complicated subject. summarizing and by business is difficult but we appreciate it.

i like to recognize myself or five minutes. you're the director of the office of foreign assets and control, ofac how many people are in. your group for your department? >> about 165. >> how many work on this particular issue? >> iran has been the number one priority for us. it is difficult to give you a number, because we divide our functions by the operation. the licensing officers come enforcement officers, and others. it would be hard to put a number on it. i can go back and come with an estimate. it is our number one priority and has been for as long as i have been at . of >>ac according to the previous witness, china is the largest importer of iranian oil. companies owned by the chinese government are providers of illicit materials and support of

their nuclear weapons program. is the united states in forcing sanctions against any chinese entity? >> absolutely, and mr. wooster can speak to the state department says it's, but we have imposed this is against chinese companies, including some state-owned firms, which were providing parts and equipment to their missile procurement network. >> how many companies are you investigating right now? >> chinese companies? i am not at liberty to disclose that. >> back in -- let me go to another part here. following the exposure of the iranian plot to potentially assassinate the saudi arabian ambassador to the united states, the obama administration actually floated the idea of sanctioning the iranian central bank. 92 out of 100 senators signed a

letter expressing support of that. where is that in its progress? what would be the effect of that? is that something that the obama administration has abandoned? >> the undersecretary has mentioned in testimony recently that proposal has not been abandoned. it is very much on the table, as are all options we could take it would credibly and meaningfully impact iran. >> why not do it? >> the issues are several. we need to analyze any prospective option in terms of the evidence available to us, of course, the impact would have on iran, and the impact -- >> we want to have the maximum effect on a run. is there spectrum this is we do not want to be too hard? >> no no. >> you lists that as her second consideration. >> it needs to be measured against my third, the impact on the united states and our allies and other countries around the

world. if we consider an action, that would have a low to moderate impact on iran, and what have a serious negative impact on the u.s. or our allies, then that is one way -- >> i am curious. an example where it would be a serious impact on the united states? >> i apologize in advance. i'm not an economic analysis. but familiarity with economic modeling may not be up to your satisfaction. in the oil discussion, in particular, their very real scenarios in which an oil price spike mike hits the could result in somewhat of a decrease -- >> so we are not willing -- this came out in the first panel, too. but this is the concern, that you're somehow gauging the price of oil -- and i am trying to

figure out what price per gallon are we now willing to pay? why is the price of a gallon of gas the primary driver in the obama administration's quest to supposedly make sure that they do not get a nuclear bomb, for goodness sake. why is the gas -- the price of gas, is there really that concern? >> the price of oil is not the primary driver. it is certainly a consideration because it is a primary driver of the recovery going on worldwide. >> when we make a decision about whether or not to pursue this iranian central bank sanctioned, what is the time line here? >> i cannot answer that. >> who makes that decision? >> the decision will be made by the administration as a whole. i wanted to challenge the notion that it is a question of how

much of a price uptick are we willing to take on ourselves in exchange for profound impact on iran. if there is a spike in the price of oil, iran gains. if there is a spike in the price of oil, iran could face a windfall. there are scenarios, plausible scenarios, in which there could be profound harm to the global economic recovery and a windfall to iran. i do not think that is what any of us are looking for. it's an area where we need to proceed with caution. my time is expired. the fact that you have 92 united states senators, a very bipartisan way, suggesting an idea floated by the obama administration, and now we're pulling back on it. it is really quite stunning. >> i did not hear you say that you're going back on it. are you pulling back on it? >> no, the option remains on the table -- that is what i thought

i heard you say. and you're considering whether it would have an adverse affect on clause in iran to get enriched by that action, and we're making it useless. >> that is correct. potentially worse than useless. potentially resulting in a boon to iran. >> emboldened them more. that would be useful thing to consider. it seems to me that people would want to be critical would say that what a great job this administration has done on sanctions and having a move forward, and then they qualify that in the medium and long- range, but they do not think it will meet the goal, to somehow impede the development of nuclear capacity. so are we doing all that should be done to impede that so that one does not outstrip the other? what else all we've been to be doing? >> i do think that experts across the spectrum have

knowledge that the pressure on iran, especially in recent months, have grown to an unprecedented level. iran is more isolated in terms of trade and investment and in its oil sector and politically. the iaea report and a revelation of the plot to en masse -- to assassinate the saudi ambassador have greatly unfounded -- compounded their isolation. we are certainly trying to do everything. this is my number one priority and we are trying to identify every possible option we can take, whether unilateral action inform ave ofac -- whether a unilateral action like designationofa willc looking for any lever for impact. we will continue to be relentless about that. >> mr. wooster. >> in response to your question

about what we're doing, as adam has rightly said, it is certainly occupying the bulk of my life. and that of my team. we have 39 people in the office of iranian affairs, 70 from overseas, 22 domestically. we are engaged on this all the time. we are engaged on and in washington, in terms of contributions that reporting officers are making in the field, well beyond the 1 and named in terms of that asset. this is the whole of government approach. yesterday i know that adam and i spent more time than we care to with one another at the white house going over the particular details of this issue. a host of other actors as well. on the diplomatic front in terms of the department of state, what we keep a come -- a close eye on is the point where we can obtain

optimal leverage, maximum leverage, and that the same time, we are not alienating key people that we need to work with in a coalition. where these are stronger, they are more effective and cheerful even if it is just the optic of it as well. and in actuality, the bike is much deeper. when we have a united front, when we have a coalition. to date, we can report success notwithstanding the points they represented checketts -- representative chaffetz has mentioned. we have six u.n. resolutions were they have put in come to paper and have senate to this. they agree on the fundamentals as do the russians that the idea of this regime having nuclear weapons is not a good one.

june wheat that people make the argument to us that at some point you could take an action that would in fact go beyond hurting the guard, the cuts force, the regime, and the iranian people, made their lives so miserable that some point they start to support a government that many of them might be inclined to resist. is there such a tepid one in your view and do you take that into account? >> yes, sir. in terms of the tipping point, i cannot show you are that is located, but there is. we of witnessed around the issue of the nuclear question, a lot of the state available to the public polling. the iranian polling, think tanks, and of course in terms of resources that each government has.

it comes up resoundingly with the conclusion that the nuclear issue is very much one of those events. there is a lot of nationalism behind the notion of a nuclear iran. that are deleterious effects as well. but the fact is that of the number of iranians are very much united around the issue of their country, too, being a member of the, if you will, nuclear club. it is something we keep an eye on. as i mentioned at the onset of my remarks, the paramount objective for us is ensuring that the regime does not obtain a nuclear weapon. between that point, the apex if you will come in the area below it, there is considerable room for maneuver. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> i recognize a judgment from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes. thank you, mr. chairman.

dr., k thereforeahl just came out, quite sobering, we have been at this for quite awhile. the window to do something seems to be narrowing. what is the plan? it seems tough to say here, but it seems almost inevitable. what is the plan? what do we do if we have a nuclear iran? it is obviously our policy to prevent >> the end of getting a nuclear weapon. the acquisition of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. how much time we have, i think there is some debate in that. obviously the iaea report is troubling. i think that there is still time to keep on a path that we are now, turning up the heat,

diplomatically, and through economic pressure. meanwhile ensuring that the president has all options available to him so that when he says that all options are on the table, there are viable. the defense department activities currently are oriented in the region to convey to iran our resolve to counter the destabilizing activities, and to deny them the benefit of their nuclear and ballistic missile program to our defense activities. but it is our view that we still have some time and that any discussion of military actions or sunday else has to be viewed very much as a last resort. >> i get it. but i've only been here a short time now, my second term. i feel like bill murray in "groundhog day." i have been at this meeting before.

we could save the tapes and, no disrespect, we could have this meeting again next year, and we could be talking -- last year i think we were talking about years, and now we're talking about a year from a very credible agency. will we also seen is that every time we hear something else, the \ \ow gets narrow i exponential growth, that is veryer scare.. so i get it and i voted for sanctions and i hope -- i am open for all options. but i'm not sure we are pointing -- monty hall is pointing to an door number to our door number three of some point in time. are we ready, facing -- whether there is a debate or not, we have our allies, we have our troops, which it had to

stabilization. prime minister netanyahu talked about exporting of very strong threat. beyond all that, i know you do not want to talk about a planned. are we ready? >> we need to teach -- treat all these time lines with an appropriate context. when you hear groups estimating one year or two years before they could have a testable the fis, its most important about das. decision to put're trying to themselves into position in which the supreme leader can make these decisions. we do have to be worried that if

the decision was ever made, the time to actually complete a testable applies -- device could shrink over time. we're watching that very carefully. i think we still do have some time. it is the responsibility of our apartment to do planning to ensure that all options are available when and if we detect that iran has made a decision to do this. >> that is as good as it gets. i think you and i yield back. >> thank you. when i recognize the man from vermont. >> thank you. can you describe the competing arguments within iran as you see it on the question of proceeding aggressively toward the development of nuclear weapons? >> i can comment if you will,

are made some observations about the national level discussions >> is that what you mean? >> i am assuming that they are eternal debate, forces that are an aggressive arguing against that, and i wonder by your department's assessment of what those arguments internally within iran are, who is making them, and who is prevailing? >> the party lines if you will are drawn fairly clearly in they have been for some time there remains a hard core, and innocents circle keen to develop a nuclear program that has been demonstrated for years. the ibm report demonstrates with the united states is known for a long time and that is

emphatically clear to all of you. we have all seen that before. in terms of -- one of the astonishing a fax about iran, we have an extraordinary demographic. 7 5 million people. 7% of whom are 30-something are under. it's really extraordinary. you have a lot folks who looked toward the future and that think about their prospects and when they do come to the notion of living in a pariah state where options are for closed to them in terms of business, travel, patience, that is so hard -- that is not a good aspect for them.

they have not demonstrated the element that i am talking about. do not fit into the camp of those who had his eyes for destabilizing the regional influences. many of them are keen on a report with the west, particularly with the united states. but, and this is a big but, they do not hold the power poured the people of the power, this is the supreme leader, the irgc, the constituent elements such as the cuts force -- qud force, and that is a very nears a circle but it is a very powerful circle. there is room for maneuvering. >> what would that room for maneuver be?

>> we find that the iranians remain extraordinarily interested in the united states. it is the aspiration of the number of iranians this in their children here to be questioning, to travel, to have the opportunities to enjoy aspects of the american culture and education. that is not an option. >> i am going to be at a time. i like to hear from the other doctor. je>> our role is to convince the iranian leadership that they will be less safe, not more, if they keep going on the nuclear weapons have. we're trying to deny the benefits of these events.

our efforts to work with israel on their defenses and provide for their qualitative military edge. all that is oriented for sending the iranians a very clear signal. they're not only facing diplomatic and financial isolation, but they are lining the rest of the region against them in a way that will make them profoundly insecure. they should stop doing this. that is our number one objective, on the young people, there is a lot of evidence the many of them think very favorably of the united states. we need to be careful in what we do to make sure that we are not alienating a group of individuals that we want to work with and have a relationship with. as long as they can stop being held hostage by their government. jim and now recognize myself for

an additional five minutes. mr. wooster, a one-way sure i heard you properly. we're talking about the iaea report that said that iran had a nuclear program. they currently have one. is that correct? they had won and they have one. >> a nuclear weapons program. >> do you believe that they have one now? >> they have provided no assurance that they have abandoned it. >> do you believe the report just issued or not? >> certification, the administration's position is and has been for years reflected in what you see in the report. the report remains a restricted document, although i am aware that it has been leaked the folks and is available to the internet. because we're having a conversation about these issues with ministers on thursday and friday in vienna, it limits what i can say and the setting.

i cannot offer my personal opinion. and i was not trying to get your personal opinion. i want to understand the administration's position on whether or not they believe that they have to wear clothes program? -- they have a nuclear weapons program. >> we remain concerned that the iranian government has of skewed gated on this decision. we will certainly that they have not sought a weapons program. that is what we're seeking. >> going back to mr. szubin here. these firms activities were detailed in a report to the administration in february. where are you at in sanctioning these particular 18 and what is happening with this report?

>> we have the report and we've had our analyst take a very good look at it. theou've been following release is from our department, and we have made sanctions against the irgc and its entities the key plank in our iraqi policy. also on the region that irgc is increasinglying -- is becoming increasingly unpopular. with also designate companies and their oil infrastructure. we have been able to get united nations as well to act in this area by restricting petroleum imports into iran. >> what about this particular

18? >> i cannot comment on which we are pleased to designate. i can say that to designate any and all of these countries is very much consistent with our strategy. in view of had this report since february. i would appreciate an updated this more recent report becomes available. the administration prepared to sanction chinese firms like, and i will pronounces improperly. norinko, are you familiar with us? >> i believe that is an energy firm. >> correct. >> i defer to my colleague from the state department, who administers the energy sanctions. >> are you familiar with this firm? >> i am not so familiar with the

meticulous of the firm, i am concerned about china and the energy sector. primarily are concerned there is because the chinese have in fact been pulling back in this area and because we have engaged at the highest levels, the president has engaged, the secretary of state, and others, we have also wanted them not to in a particular backfield behind in the other energy firms that have left, and we can report that we are seeing is satisfactory. we continue to keep an eye on it and discuss it. we discuss it in beijing lesson a week ago, but they face secretary of state burns. >> the last point i like to make before we wrap up. the concern about our presence

in iraq after the 31st of december, with the department of defense pulling out, 60,500 people there. under the control secretary clinton. hopper part of wheat for may -- what may or may that happened on january 1? >> i have limited capability to give you a good response of been -- on their preparations. however, but i can say from a policy perspective, we are committed to a long-term relationship with iraq. no one should doubt our commitment to that country we have transition than our relationship with iraq. it is tempting to see it as going from black to white, but it is not. it is a transition to another phase in our relationship.

are committed to the region is longstanding and indoors. >> thank you. i appreciate you being here and for your testimony today in the work that you do on behalf of our country again, we appreciate your presence. the committee now stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] the u.s., britain, and other

countries and >> put together sanctions against iran. we will include remarks from tom donovan. 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. later in the morning, the ongoing operation2 afghanistan. live coverage begins at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. newt gingrich met with the new hampshire union leader newspaper yesterday. that is next on c-span3 then remarks from president obama on the that your of the joint deficit reduction committee to reach an agreement. washingtonning's journal, a look ahead for congress and the federal debt. that is at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> in the name of the greatest people that have ever tried this

earth, i draw the line in that dust and tossed but all but before the seat of terror and a and i say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever. >> for most of his life, george wallace was an ardent supporter of segregation, outspoken against the civil rights movement. the four-term governor of alabama ran for president four times and laws. one of those attempts cut short by an assassination attempt. this week on the contenders, and george wallace from the governor's mansion in alabama. >> now republican presidential candidate newt gingrich talk to the new hampshire union leader newspaper about easy received after leaving congress from freddie mac and other organizations. this is about an hour. >> it's been very good as you know going around the country.

it's joe and gary and the chief editorial writer, and gary's taken on 6,000 new assignments in the last few weeks, and he'll be in the state house bureau for us when he's not here. we said, gary, come down here to do this one. we got some good in-depth interviews with the candidates in the last few weeks, and right off the bat, i want to ask you about what is in the news overseas, which is the report that perhaps a dozen cia informants have been captured and maybe killed in both iran and lebanon. which leads me to ask you what's your reaction to that, and if you were president of the united states, whatore wouldou need before you sanctioned or participated in or helped

somebody take out the iran nuclear plants? >> well, i think that our goal shou be to replace the regime. i think if u take out the plants, the dictatorship stays there, the plants come back. i would adopt the reagan, pope john paul ii strategy by maximizing every pressure on the regime, ask congress to repeal most of the restrictions on the cia so we can go backo the real spying. i would have a fund set up to support anybody who was -- thank you -- but i would support any group in the country, as much as we did in poland, elsewhere, and in the cold war. i would be prepared at a point where if we get to a point where

the military believes that they are truly on the verge, and i'd be prepared to use military force, but i'd try before that to do everything i could to disrupt and wake the regime, including, you know,aximizing covert operations inside the country, and i would also be prepared to cut off their gasoline supply. they are unique about lots of crude oil. they only have one major refinery that makes 60% of their gas gasoline, and i would look at finding ways to impede their refineries, to basically wage economicwarfare against them until the regime broke. >> you don't think we're doing that now? >> no, not very effectively. >> what about the internet warfare? >> my guess either we did or the israelis did, and that's good. i mean, i think the next thing you want to see is an israeli effort to break up the whole

thing, not just the nuclear part, but for example, go into the bank system, a variety of other places, and break them up electronically to cause division, and we could wage real cyberwarfare against iran and be remarkably effective at closing it down. >> you would argue -- >> i would do everything we could short of war to replace the regime, and if that failed, i'd sadly agree to military action to stop them from getting nuclear weapons. >> you also said, and you said it to me before, that you think we need to reassess our entire foreign policy military situation as it applies to afghanistan, and elsewhere, which sounds a little like hillary with a reset button. what exactly do you mean by reassess? specifically with regard to afghantan? >> the strategy for afghanistan does include a strategy for pakistan, and we look at

pakistan and realize they were sustaining for the last decade, at least six or seven years, he was in one of the major military cities. you have to assume large elements of pakistan are active, and i think you got to back up and say this is part of why i'm for an american energy strategy. you have to be able to take risks in the region that the world's oil supply doesn't currently allow you to take because the disallocation would be so extraordinary. look at the iranians, the saw -- saudis. we tolerate it because we're afraid toake them mad at us because of energy. >> how do you go after that? first build up -- >> [inaudible] i would say we're going to keep them not gist to be independent, but have a surplus of energy to sell into the world market so you're not frightened so there's

two problems. you got, you know, the iranians on one side, the saudis on the other. >> don't like each other? >> that makes it to our advantage, but the threat of the saudis is the spike in price and crippling the world economy, and the iranians close the straits and block the persian gulf. that's why the people surround us. when you face the peoe who are clearly actively hostile to your civilization, you have to think seriously about how much pressure you're prepared to bear, and the saudi regime is not a strong regime. i will be clear to the saudis that they have to get control over the money spent on this. they have to change the nature of what they are doing. they are exporting which is thee most extreme form all across the world, and we, in effect, are paying for saudi weth to be

used to undermind our own civilization. >> they export it elsewhere hoping to keep the lid on it at home; right? >> right. >> and if you disrupt the saudi kingdom as it now stands, aren't you going to have a huge arab revolt? >> you see the tunisians now talking about becoming more islamist. you see the libya now probably being led by people from ben gay cy who are -- ben ghazi, and even a place where we supposedly won, it should disturb every american in iraq after the amerin victory, quote, unquote, why do 700,000 christians leave a country we win?

i think that's why we have to reassess the whole thing. i don't see any great result out of the last decade to lead us to believe we're winning. >> drew, any thoughts on that? do you want to jump into domestic? >> domestic's good. >> domestic's good? okay. in with domestic, harry. >> well, this morning, we're hearing there's not any agreement at all, the supercommittee. number one, did you think that was a good idean the first place, and number two, what can be done at this point? >> well, first of all, i said early on, it was tdumbest idea i'd heard of. i mean, to take 535 people who are supposed to represent us declined to 12 so over 90% have no representation, and have them hand picked by political leaders and think they are going to accomplish something? i'm this was an act of