calling, american's interest. host: how did you research this? guest: we went to the data and create our own databases, combing through campaign contributions. host: it is all available online at the crew site. thank you for being with us. the president is departing today for manchester, new hampshire. the house and senate essentially in recess. we'll go to the house of the floor. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] ossible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order and the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., november 22, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable steven c. latourette to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer today will be offered by the guest chaplain, the reverend mark farr from the faith and politics institute of washington, d.c. the chaplain: let us pray. good lord, on the anniversary of the death of president john f. kennedy, we remember our

presidents and all those who served however high or lowly their office. also, those from this house who more recently have paid a price for their service. keep all who attend this house safe knowing that in a nation whose ideals require their leaders not be distanced from the people, this can mean personal peril. give them strength to know that their gift is never without cost and in a season of thanksgiving, holy and eternal god, we give you thanks that so many still serve the common good and that through them the beautiful ideals of our republic still stand.

in your name we pray. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, i have the honor to transmit a sealed envelope received from the white house on november 21, 2011, at 4:15 p.m. and said to contain a message from the president whereby he smits to the congress an executive order

he has issued with respect to iran. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read the message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, pursuant to the international emergency economic powers act, 50 u.s.c., eepa, i have reported an executive order that takes additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in executive order 12957 of march 15, 1995. an executive order 12957, the president found that the actions and policies of the government of iran threatened the national security foreign policy and economy of the united states. to deal with that threat, the president in executive order 12957 declared a until emergency and imposed prohibitions on certain transactions with respect to the development of iranian

petroleum resources. to further respond to that threat, executive order 12959 of may 6, 1995, and posed comprehensive trade and financial sanctions on iran. executive order 13059 of august 19, 1997 consolidated an clarified the previous orders. in the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability and divestment act of 2010, public law, 111-95, 22 u.s.c., 8501, which i signed into law on july 1, 2010, the congress found that the illicit nuclear activities of the government of iran, along with its development of unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles and its support for international terrorism threatened the security of the united states. the congress also found in cisava that economic sanctions

imposed pursuant to the provisions the iran sanctions act of 1996, public law 104-72, 50 u.s.c., 1701, note ifa, and to ieepa, and other authorities available to the united states to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons, are necessary to protect the essential security interests of the united states. to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in executive order 12957 and to implement section 105-a of cifada, 22 u.s.c., 8514-a, i issued executive order 13553 on september 28, 2010. to impose sanctions on officials of the government of iran and other persons acting on behalf of the government of iran determined to be responsible for complicit and certain -- and certain serious

human rights abuses. to take additional steps with respect to the threat posed by iran and to provide implementing authority for a number of the sanctions set forth in i.f.a.c.i.f.a.d.a. i issued executive order 13574 on may 23, 2011, to authorize the secretary of the treasury to implement certain scankses imposed pursuant to i.f.a. to the secretary of the state. this order expands upon actions taken pursuant to i.f.a. as amended by cisada. it requires that absent a waiver, the president imposed at least three of nine possible forms of sanctions on persons determined to have made certain investments in iran's energy sector. the cifada expanded i.f.a. to interalia require the same treatment of persons determined to have provide petroleum to

iran above specified monetary thresholds tore to provide certain goods, technology, information or support to iran related to importation or development of refined petroleum. this order authorizes the secretary of this state to impose similar sanctions on persons determined to have provided certain goods, services, technology or support that contributes to either iran's development of petroleum resources or to iran's production of petro chemicals. two sectors that continue to fund iran's illicit nuclear activities and could serve as conduits for iran to obtain proliferation sensitive technology. because cifada has impeded iran's ability to develop its domestic capacity, they have compensated by using the petro chemical facilities to refine petroleum. these new authorities will allow the united states to target directly iran's attempts

to subvert u.s. sanctions. this order authorizes the secretary of the state in consultation with the secretary of the treasury, the secretary of commerce and the united states trade representative and with the president of the export-import bank, the chairman of the board of governors of the federal reserve system and other agencies and officials as appropriate to impose sanctions on a person upon determining that the person knowingly on or after the effective date of the order sell leases or provides to iran goods, services, technology or support that has a fair market valve $1 million or more or that during a 12-month period has an aggregate fair market value of $5 million or more and that could directly and significantly contribute to the maintenance or enhancement of iran's ability to develop petroleum resources located in iran. knowingly on or after the effective date of this order,

sells leases or provides iran goods, services, technology or support that has a fair market value of $250,000 or more or that during a 12-month period has an aggregate fair market value of $1 million or more or could significantly contribute to the maintenance or expansion of iran's domestic production of petrochemical products. as a successor entity to a person that engaged in a provision of goods, services, technology or support for which sanctions may be imposed pursuant to this new order, owns or controls a person that engaged in provision of goods, services, technology or support for which sanctions may be imposed pursuant to this new order and has actual knowledge or should have known that the person engaged in the activities or is owned or controlled by or under ownership or control with a person that engaged in the provision of goods, services,

technology or support for which sanctions may be imposed pursuant to this new order and knowingly participated in the provision of such goods, services, technology or support. the following sanctions may be selected for imposition on a person that the secretary of state determines to meet any of the above criteria. the board of governors of the export-import bank shall deny approval of the issuance of any guarantee, extension of credit or participation in an extension of credit in connection with the export of any goods or services to the sanctioned person. agencies shall not issue any specific license or grant any other specific permission or authority under any statute that requires the prior renewal and approval of the united states government as a condition for the export or re-export of goods or technology to the sanctioned person. with respect to a sanctioned person, that is a financial

institution, the chairman of the board of governors of the federal reserve system and the president of the federal reserve bank of new york shall take such actionses as they deem appropriate, including denying designation or any prior designation of the sanctioned person as a primary dealer in the united states government debt instruments or agency shall prevent the sanctioned person from serving as an agent of the united states government or serving as a repository for united states government funds. agencies shall not procure or enter into a contract for the procurement of any goods or services from the sanctioned person. the secretary of the treasury shall prohibit any united states financial institution for making loans or providing credit to the sanctioned person totaling more than $10 million in any 12-month period unless such person is engaged in activities to relieve human suffering and the loans are

credits are provided for such activities. the secretary of the treasury shall prohibit any france actions in foreign exchange that are subject to the jurisdiction of the united states and in which the sanctioned person has any interest. the secretary of the treasury shall prohibit any transfers of credit or payments between financial institutions or by through or to any financial institution to the extent that such transfers or payments are subject to the jurisdiction of the united states and involve any interest in the sanctioned person. the secretary of the treasury shall block all property and interest in property that are in the united states, that come within the united states or that are to come within the possession or control of any united states person including any foreign branch of the sanctioned person and provides that such property and interest in property may not be transferred, paid, exported,

withdrawn or otherwise dealt in or the secretary of the freshry shall restrict or prohibit import of goods, technology or services directly or indirectly into the united states from the sanctioned person. i have delegated to the secretary of the treasury the authority in consultation with the secretary of the state to take such actions, including the promle gation of rules and regulations and to employ all powers granted to the president by ieepa as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of section 3 of the order. all agencies of the united states government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of the order. i am inclosing a copy of the executive order i have issued. signed barack obama, the white house, november 20, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: the communication is referred to the government on foreign affairs and ordered printed. the chair lays before the house

a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a subpoena to testify and to produce documents issued by the district court of colorado. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that compliance with this subpoena is inconsistent with the privileges and rights of the house. furthermore, on november 10, 2011, the district court of lamere county, colorado, squashed the subpoena. therefore, my testimony and production of documents are no longer required. signed sincerely, cory gardner, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: the chair wishes to extend to all members of the house, their families and every american a happy thanksgiving. without objection, the house stands adjourned until 1:00

>> the debate on sanctions for iran is happening right now on c-span 2, hosted by the brookings institution and is supposed to last until the afternoon. right now, we are going live to an event featuring conservative groups and the tea party patriots joining forces today to call the joint deficit reduction committee failure a victory.

this began about 10 minutes ago. >> - and to bury obama care once and for all which will provide stability and ultimately grow our nation's economy. the future for the republican majority rests upon it acting responsibly and not governing as the democratic party would like to do by raising taxes on the american families. >> thank you, tony. the head of americans for prosperity -- >> thank you for pulling this together today. last november, republicans across this great country promised throughout their campaigns into two key things in pursuit of economic recovery and job creation -- to not raise taxes, to hold the line and push for tax reforms that cut the

onerous tax rates that are harming the job creation in this country and the second thing they promised was to genuinely cut spending in washington, d.c. and rain in these budget deficits that are literally in periling our long-term and short-term economic prosperity. don't -- they made those two promises to the american people last fall and certainly it helped millions of americans believe in them and supporting them. now they face a moment of truth. we will find out whether they will keep their promises to not raise taxes. and are they going to genuinely cut spending? sadly, we know where the president is on tax increases and we know where nancy pelosi is and we know where harry reid stanford they want to raise taxes. it is part of their makeup. republicans have made different promise to the american people we are calling on them and urging them and warning them to

keep their word to the american people they made just last fall while we applaud the super committed not raising taxes, it was troubling to see tax increase offers on the table. that is not the way to prosperity. last week, this congress, with the support of many republicans in the house and senate, passed a mini-bus spending bill the blew through the paul ryan spending numbers. early numbers are not good. if republicans are to avoid the fate they had early this past decade a promising spending cuts and dramatically failing and that responsibility, if they are going to avoid that and the fate that had of being turned out by the american people, they have to show results now. they have to show that there

will genuinely stand up and oppose tax increases and take his message out prosperity to the country. they have to be serious about cutting spending, no more phantom gains or gimmicks -- let's cut spending folks talk about the $1.20 trillion over the next decade but that is less than 3% of the total expenditures of over the next decade. what family out there has not had to make those kind of cuts? republicans and democrats can surely do that and make those basic cuts to save our prosperity and bring back job creation in this country. about 2.5 months ago with americans for prosperity, i stood in washington state in the home of patty murray, the co- chair of the congressional super committee and we lost our americans for prosperity cut spending now tour. we traveled from there all the way across the country holding events in pushing online activism and literally hundreds of thousands of americans

responded to that call. they contacted congress and signed petitions saying cut spending and hold the line on tax increases. we wrapped up that tour in washington, d.c. all along the east coast and the message was the same. that is what we are calling on congress to do now. over the next month, genuinely promote job creation and economic recovery by holding the line on taxes and by cutting spending. that is the pathway to prosperity, thank you. >> jenny beth martin the head of the tea party patriots. >> thank you. our modern day tea party movement started because people were fed up with the out of control government spending and it has not stopped. in fact, it has gotten worse in the last 2.5 years. the elections last year had won

overwhelming message and that message was -- it is time for congress to quit spending some much money. they have not listened to and they are not listening. they set up this so-called super committee knowing it would not work just to be a distraction so they can continue to raise -- to increase taxes. the crazy thing is, only in washington, d.c. do they say it is a spending cut when really they are raising spending. because they are so addicted to the spending, there is still out -- they are still considering raising our taxes. we say enough is enough, it is time to stop. cut the spending now. the cr runs out on december 16 and we challenge the house and the senate to cut $1 trillion in real spending during that process. real spending.

that will stimulate our economy and it will create jobs for our americans. congress cannot take more money out our paychecks just because they cannot get control of their addiction to overspending. we say do not raise taxes, cut the spending, and cut it now. >> the head of citizens united -- >> thank you all very much. i want to commend brent bozell for this conference. i want to associate myself with his comments. elections have consequences. over half a million members of citizens united fully support that. we are tired of the games. we are tired of the democratic games and the republican gains. we are in the midst of an obama

recession. president obama and the democrats in congress just want to continue the failed status quo. that is unacceptable to the american people. the status quo is more spending and more taxes and more debt. america needs new leadership to chart a course back to fiscal sanity. by pushing the same old failed policies, president obama has failed the american people. just last year, even president obama said that you cannot raise taxes during a recession. last week, 72 republicans took a common sense step in sending a letter to the now-defunct super committee urging them not to raise taxes on their fellow americans. of that number, 43 of those 72 were supported by citizens united political victory fund.

i am happy with those 43 and i am happy with the 72. where is the other 170? where are the rest of the republican caucus? where is the republican leadership? we have to have elected members of the house and senate who will but leadership on these important issues of the day. if we don't do that, we will be tossed out as well next year. over the past year with all the fights over continuing resolutions and debt limits, one fact remains -- nothing has changed. federal spending will still increase by $145 billion this year. that is an increase in spending of $145 billion in fiscal year 2011. that is not cutting.

that is not doing anything but continuing with the status quo. leaders on both sides of pennsylvania avenue and both sides of the aisle have failed the american people. i think that newt gingrich had it right. this super committee was a dumb idea. i think it just kicked the can down the road and now that they have failed, we are looking to kick it down the road again. we are saying we won't address these things and president obama has come out and said he will veto any way to get around it. we are handing the democrats a campaign issue that i don't think they should have. we need to come together as a movement, the conservative movement must lead this republican party down the road to fiscal sanity, thank you. >> dave macintosh from the leadership project.

>> i want to share with you that there is a group of us that pulled together economists from our different perspectives to form something we call a shadow super committee but it is a protest -- prosperity committee. there is a better way than tax increases to solve the debt and deficit problem. it is a pro-growth prosperity agenda. we saw it in the 1980's when president reagan came in in a severe recession and cut taxes and had regulatory reform, stable money. we saw it when president clinton came in in the 1990's after a recession and we had the contract with america with lower taxes, less regulation, pro- growth initiatives. that is what we need to put on the table now is a better way of a prosperity agenda that will take our gross domestic product from $15 trillion to $20 trillion. it has happened in the past during the reagan administration. there were 17 million new jobs

created and in the clinton administration, there were 23 million new jobs. in the last decade, we have only seen 3 million new jobs. we need that growth agenda. there is a lot of great ideas so let's let them compete in some of them are tax reforms that do not punish investment and job creation, stable money and currency, torte reform and regulatory reform. the phoenix group said you could cut 10% of federal regulations, that would create over 1 million new jobs and approximately $150 billion of economic growth. there's a better way and we will form this prosperity committee and we will send the leadership of the house and the son of these ideas so they can start moving in that direction. thank you for including me and thank you for holding this conference. >> finally, a couple of words from general ed meese from the heritage confederation. >> the news today is that

economic growth during the third quarter has been scaled back to%. the reason that mimic growth which is so different from the recovery in the 1980's under president reagan is that we are constantly facing the specter of tax increases, regulatory increases, and increased spending. until we get this under control, we will not get -- have economic growth and will continue the unemployment we are facing at the present time. it is critical to look at history and see where we had economic growth. we have to look good when we have lower taxes and less spending and control the budget and we have less deficit. that is the only remedy that will do anything to improve the economy. as long as we face the threat of tax increases, we will have this continued unemployment and a continued problem we face today. the message that should come out

of this conference today for which i thanked brent for organizing his last command those members of the congress who have stood against tax increases and let's make sure that we go ahead into the future with a firm commitment against raising taxes and a real effort to control spending and two overall lower the debt, thank you. >> we will open up for questions and be mindful that we have to pass around the microphone. would you like to state who you would like to ask this of? >> this is for most of the members who have spoken. i am from "the washington post." the message is that we need to cut taxes -- make sure that tax increases don't happen and we cut spending. would you agree that we should

extend to the payroll tax cu extension? >> speaking for myself, i think it was a disastrous idea and an unbelievably stupid idea to go along with a provision that would cripple our military during a war. we know our leaders would not show leadership. something has to be done and done quickly. we cannot penalize the military. we cannot penalize the military during a time of war. that said, there is so much that could be done and should be done and has been promised to be done. how many times have we heard promises to cut the abortion portion of planned parenthood. nothing has been done leadership promised to x out the

unnecessary spending pbs. nothing has been done. promises were made and promises have not been kept. let harry reid stand up and say that he will fight to keep the abortion mills of plan power to open. -- a planned parenthood open. republicans would win a landslide but republicans don't take a stand here and don't take very strong stand saying that they are very serious about cuts and they put it on paper, then the public will not distinguish between parties come november. it will be guaranteed that republicans will lose. >> what about the reversal of some of the spending cuts in the military?

>> it would be hypocritical for democrats or republicans will cut a debt limit do just this past summer and turn around and say we were just kidding about the spending side. the dollar levels have to be there. that is the deal they made. it was the wrong deal. we supported cuts, cap, and balance. to turnaround would be wrong. >> can i address the tax question? i would suggest that the leaders in congress take the deal that led to the payroll tax holiday and make the whole deal permanent so permanently expend that and extend the bush tax cuts, the lower rates. you would then see greater certainty and huge investment in

the economy where you might get another 2% growth go up to 3%. the discipline would help us pay down the debt. if you're going to talk about the tax side, i would suggest they consider making permanent the temporary deal they did and that would create more certainty and get you more bang for the bulk of the economic side. >> one of the primary responsibilities of the federal government is to defend the nation. i think it was stupid to put military cuts in the amount they were into the sequester idea and in effect told the military hostage for the excess of spending on the domestic side which has gone on for far too long and to now say that this administration has tried to hold military hostage for tax increases is absolutely wrong.

at the same time, there is ample room for cutting spending. you have heard examples here. it is entirely possible to take the spending cuts that are necessary without endangering the military capability to defend the country. the idea that the military -- cuts in nonmilitary spending would be demanded in order to try to raise taxes is as unpatriotic and contrary to the needs of this country as anything i have seen. >> tea party patriots have a problem with the premise of your question which is that we truly don't think they will cut ne spending. those spending cuts do not go into effect until 2013 and gives this congress plenty of time to go back and change they will make a back room deals and the behavior we have seen from them

indicates that is what they will do. the fact that they have military spending on the table or medicare spending on the table, we don't believe that they mean that. american people are fed up with congress. they live. lie. they said that spending increases are cuts and may play stupid games saying that they will cut this over the course of stupid games but the cuts don't go into effect until after the next election is time to do something now. >> next question? >> i am with cns news - you applauded the house republicans for not caving to the democratic request to raise taxes i guess that is the main

reason why the super committee did not reach an agreement. at the end of 2012, taxes will go up automatically any way. regardless of this continues and there is no deal on anything. how does that problem gets solved? what should happen and how you get it through the -- have you get the democrats to go along with it? >> there are two ways -- one to persuade congress to extend today's tax laws and make them permanent. if they are not willing to do that, the other way to elect a congress in january of 2013 who will come in and do exactly that. >> understand what we are saying -- what the business community

is looking for is stability. they simply do not trust the federal government. they don't trust the government to raise their taxes and cripple their businesses. the best thing this congress could do is to stabilize the situation. i would stabilize the taxes. for starters, the bush tax cuts are paul. they have been in place for 11 years. mess with them and is called a tax increase. they should be made policy. they need to remain that way. you should extend the payroll tax cuts. i think republicans should be looking at a tax cut deal. they need to encourage investment. they need to lower the corporate tax rate. every presidential candidate is in favor of that. i cannot understand why the congress does not do that what the speaker should have done and where he has made a critical mistake and needs to address it,

they were all for cuts, cap, and balances a program. the congress voted for it and as soon as harry reid said he would not consider it, the republicans left and came up with the john boehner plan which is not nearly as good. they should go back to cut, cap, and balanced and take that to the american people in 2012. i guarantee you if they had a plan like that with the growth provision, just as a guarantee you they will lose if they don't, i guarantee you they will win a landslide if they do. anybody? >> it is not an over a tax problem, is an overspending problem. wiest keep starting the promise of a conversation -- we keep starting the premise of the conversation of what you will do to raise taxes.

it should not be on the table. we have to go back to the cap, cut, and the balance toward we have to get back to the basics. we are overspending. only warren buffett thinks he is a are under-taxed. everyone else in america is in agreement they are over-taxed. we need to address the spending first and foremost. i would consider, the members of citizens united, will consider that allowing the bush tax increase to go away -- the bush tax cuts -- would be a tax increase and those that vote for it will be held accountable. >> yes, ma'am? do you have a microphone? >> we are seeing the occupy wall

street movement which is opposed to spending cuts and may want higher taxes to continue to grow across america. what is your response to that? >> that they should get jobs and that would increase the tax base of america. >> i think the occupy wall street movement is doing us a favor. it is good for the american people to have a crystal clear choice between competing visions. that is a good thing and when you see not just policy proposals of raising taxes and breaking our country, bankrupting our country, the same old tax and class warfare and envy and hatred, the american people are rejecting that. when you see the manner in which they are operating and breaking ball law and violence just a few weeks ago, they are doing us a favor. is a good thing to have a tea party movement that is non- violent, broad based, literally millions upon millions of

americans acting responsibly. >> i am not speaking for anyone but i get offended when the members of the tea party who came out of the woodwork over the last couple of years and took to the streets and organized in their local communities and came together to fight for hope, growth, and opportunity for all americans -- that they get put into the same category or compared to this occupy wall street' socialist movement that they want to destroy america. i wish they would all wake up one day and get a job because that is one way they could actually change america.

they could increase our tax base by paying taxes instead of living off all of us in this room and all of you watching on tv. this is a crystal clear moment for the american people to see the difference between the left and the right. do not be mistaken -- this is an organized effort on the left. they will not sleep until i have one. -- until they have one. >> they are reporting that city governments have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for cleanup and police in overtime and everything else. wouldn't that be nice if we could supply -- which -- if we could apply that to the national debt? yes, ma'am? >> i am wondering what you think of where congressional republicans are headed right now in the super committee talks, the plan that was put

forward included some new tax revenue and on the house side, when the house voted on a balanced budget amendment last week, the members of the republican conference chose the more moderate version. on both of those issues, what do you see as the direction the republicans are headed? >> both are bad ideas. the week balanced budget amendment did nothing but help ensure the re-election of 25 democrats. all it would have done was take a pathway to a tax increase. what we propose is a strong balanced budget amendment the caps spending and has a 2/3 provision on tax spending or they would have to get a 2/3 majority to get a tax increase. republicans should have taken that bill and passed it and challenged the democrats in the senate given that we have 47 republicans in the senate, all of whom was said they would reported, they should have challenged the democrats.

we would have had a huge success. it was a bad idea by the republican leader. shipping ship. we have to be careful, we don't know exactly who said what to home. there is a lot of conjecture out there. it was a bad idea. the problem is a runaway spending train wreck. the problem is not taxes, it is spending. everybody on the republican side to take a position that we will address spending and nothing but spending. >> my recommendation to the republicans would be to pivot to a pro-growth agenda and say now is the time where we have tax reform that creates jobs where we have stable money, regulatory

relief, and other programs that are out there that will increase the gdp and create jobs. if they get out of this box they have created for themselves on the super committee and say we will be for growth and prosperity and create jobs, that is the solution for them in the coming years. i think is the answer to the tea party and the occupied movement. fundamentally, they want a country that is healthy again with a good economy and good job opportunities. it answers the question, too. >> the balanced budget amendment last week was the ga anotherme. they knew it was going to fail using the weak one instead of a strong one that would actually constrain congress. it is more games and we see through it. further, we have people who

support the tea party patriots and the tea party move and across this country who say congress is not even abiding by the current constitution and the question whether amending it will make a difference. that is not good. the constitution has rule of law and our land and our congress and the people in d.c. to be abiding by it. our people need to have faith in that document. if they are going to amend it, they don't need to play games with amending such an important document. our entire country is based on this. they were playing games and if they are going to vote on something, it -- it better vote on something that is strong enough that does not allow congress to continue to spend out of control and automatically trigger tax increases. that is what they did last week and it was wrong. >> earlier this year, april or

the spring, the house republicans did something that was politically courageous. all but four of them voted to pass the paul ryan budget consideration. it was not perfect but it brought the most far-reaching medicare and medicaid reform in american history and it took some gumption to do that. many americans respected that and they knew they would be demagogued by president obama on left. they were. but they stood up. one reason why it is more disappointing to see this spending bill last week, the spending levels for several of the appropriations for the agencies were well beyond the paul ryan budget resolution numbers. 133 house republicans and 17 senate republicans voted for this spending bill. you pass a 10-year budget resolution and you blow for the

spending caps in the very first year. what will happen in the years 2, 3, 4? not many people took notice but it was a really bad sign for the republicans and for the country because if you can't meet spending resolution limits for the first year, when you just voted earlier this year, you will not going to down the road. while we applaud what they did with the paul ryan budget, last week was not a disastrous vote. >> any other questions? yes, sir? >> i am from cnn -- as the historian of the group, we have had pledges in the past of no new taxes only to find out that we need to raise taxes. how do you reassure those that would favor tax increases that there will not have to come

back with more taxes? >> one way was included in a strong version of the balanced budget amendment and that would be a requirement of 2/3 votes in both houses to raise taxes. that would be a good start. the other thing, right now, would be to make the current tax situation which includes those reductions that president bush was able to achieve and make them permanent. that is the least we can do in order to assure people we will not have this continual specter that our current president refers to every chance he gets that he wants to raise taxes. we need some way to assure the people and these are two ways that would go a long way in order to assure the people that the specter of increased taxes will not be something they have to fear. it is the basic threshold beyond which we will not have economic growth. >> thank you. any other questions?

i'm sorry, >> just a quick follow-up -- if it came down to, in the months from now, a stand-alone a vote on the payroll tax extension, what would you advise members to do? ideally it would be great if this worked into a larger tax package but of it came down to this one provision -- >> it is time to extend it. it is not the time to raise taxes. absolutely extend it. if you want to see a broader package, absolutely extend it. >> our folks do not want tax increases. they want fundamental tax reform and if there is tax reform, they ultimately want no

tax increases. >> any other questions? ok, thank you so much for coming out, thanks to everybody here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [no audio] [inaudible conversations] [laughter]

{inaudible conversations] >> we have more live programming -- president obama is on the road today and he will talk about his jobs plan in new hampshire later today. we will have that live for you at about two o'clock 15 eastern here on c-span. also, the center for american progress posted an event looking at the relationship between demographics, economics, and the upcoming election which starts at noon eastern and we will have live coverage on cspan 3. >> there was a flood in fort wayne. people were down there filling sandbags and trying to keep the. river air force one stopped and that had a motorcade down to the

flooded areas and he took off his jacket. my memory was that he filled three sandbags and said hello and got back in the car and went back on the plane. that night, what filled the airwaves was not 3 sandbags, it was ronald reagan filling sandbags with the shirt off them up thanksgiving day, sam donaldson and andrea mitchell, and former senator chris dodd talk about the legacy of ronald reagan. michael bloomberg and "harry's law huffington discuss the american dream and the opportunities in the u.s.. astronauts john glenn, neil armstrong, buzz aldrin, and michael collins are awarded the congressional gold medal. for the entire thanksgiving day schedule, a c-span.org go to. republican presidential candidate newt gingrich said he needs to finish in the top three in the iowa caucuses in the new hampshire primary next month to continue his candidacy for the president for it he also talked about the super committee, calling it an act of

desperation. he taught to read his role in advising freddie mac and made these comments at a new hampshire editorial meeting in manchester. the hour-long meeting started with a newspaper publisher. a new poll shows the former house speaker in a statistical tie with mitt romney. mr. romney was at 29% and newt gingrich was a 27%. with a 3.6% margin of error. itorial writer, and gary's ken on 6,000 new assignments in the last few weeks, and he'll be in the state house bureauor o

do this one. we got some good in-depth interviews with the candides 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,hat 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 maxizing 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 whe 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,ut 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 thei refineries, to basically wage economic warfare ainst them until the regime broke. >> you don't think we're doing that now? >> no, not very effectively. >> what abouthe 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 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 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 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, t saudis on the other. >> don't like each other? >> that makes it to our advantage, but the threat of the saudis ishe spike in price and

crippling the world economy, and the iranians close the straits and block the persian gulf. that's why t people surround us. when you face the people who are clearly actively hostile to your civilization, you haveo 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 spe on this. ey 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 elsewhe 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 libyans 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 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 deca 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, iaid 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 sothing? i'm this was an act of desperation by people who couldn't fix anything. i said it upront. i mean, if i were in boehner's shoes, i don't know if i would do any 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 schedule 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 now 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 jobs and american energy and revenue for the federal gornment? 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 t 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 to take? >> phil gramm wrote last week about sequestering, that 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 repeal the defense cutting, is that not something to campaign on? >> well, i would campaign on the approval of the defense cutting, but i also say what strikes me is there's three paths. there is the fantasy path that obama's on that leads to greece, and he's been wandering around

the country like a 16ear-old with his first credit card. i'm sure he'll bring money in some form, 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 rgan 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. .. let's say they're off by a factor of three, so you only

save $150 billion. that would be as much as the super committee is trying to find. we did a study, based on "the new york times" material, and we believe the level of corruption is between $70,000,000,000.100 $20 billion. we talked to mastercard, visa, and ibm, all of whom believe they could save 95% of that money. the social security plan i will announce this the afternoon is designed to change trillions of dollars. martin feldstein has argued that if you have a capital-based system, the impact on the economy to economic growth is very substantially increase growth over the next 30 years.

>> what are the bullet points of the plant that your architect who is with you today came up with? >> basically, everyone who wants to, starting with the young, but anyone who wanted to, could choose a social security savings account. you could build it up over your working lifetime. if you wanted to work part-time at 14 or 16 -- the easiest model is you are allowed to put your half of the social security tax into your savings account. the other half goes to sustain the current system. when you look at that, it turns up that half the amount you pay to social security comes to two- to-three times the amount. we would also keep a guarantee that you would never fall below the social security minimum

level. so, if you had terrible investment luck, and retired at except in the wrong time, you would still get a guarantee. in chile, over 30 years, they have never paid a penny. >> part-time hours with the kids, that would start with them cleaning the schools instead of the janitors? >> as you know, i am for the. >> i know. explain this. this is kind of neat. >> i actually do believe the declaration of independence applies to everyone, and it's as we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which in that generation meant not hedonism and acquisition.

if you look at our poor neighborhoods, you have no money, and you have no work habits, so you are trapped. the simple thing to do is redesign the school system so kids could take care of the school. part of the place i got this from was college of the ozarks, a terrific work study program. you cannot apply unless you need financial aid. they are the fifth most selective college in the united states, right after columbia they only take a very small number. they have no student aid. you work 15 hours a week, and two 40-hour weeks during the school year, and that pays tuition and books. you work 40 hours a week during the summer and that pays school .nd board toward 9 90% of their graduates owe nothing.

this is an alternative to the obama model. 8% 05 thousand dollars because they bought a car their senior year. everywhere you went you have people working in the school. most of the clerical work was stevens. public universities have risen in costs for more than five years in a row. they are about to have one clerk for every teacher, and you wonder why the price goes up? what if instead of student loans they had student work? my life as a part of her financial package in college topped out she had 20 students 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 much earlier. we see people in poor nehborhoods don't work, drop out of school, have no habit of showing up or staying all day. it's not really yr money. it's tragic what we've done to the poorest people. >> you mentioned 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 your initial response was i may historian and it was 300,000 bucks and then eight got up to one 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 the course of the years involved o 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 favor of, which amazed me, the

medicare part b which was the death knell for a lot of republics winning again. and you said that 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 paid for. >> at a time when didn't have the money. >> first of all i think to have a medicare program that sys 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 happy to walk you through how to balance the budget, but in the case of health care to take the example, i've 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. we did 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 topryce 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 combine that 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 radcal. >> i was asked should we impose on the country something the country thinks this deeply unpopular. and didn't reference ryan. >> we are talking about the ry in plan? >> the question i asked i 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 with social security, you have

to have a conversation with the country where the country decides that in fact they will acpt 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 the eletes 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 ifference 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 rublican nominee, say you - >> helps repealed, repudiated. it's one more blow at how unconstitutional obama is. >> on the obamacare mandate, the heritage oundation 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 oused on the federal level. i talked about it at the center of the state level and what we are trying to solve, and i finally come would you couldn't 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 politicize 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 ar 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 people 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 you create this mind set in health care it's a very real problem for hospitals and thats what we are trying to get at is how do you encourage responsibility for people who

otherwise -- john goodman has had a model of that under the inpatient power you get a tax credit if you don't want to take it you don't have to buy insurance yo share the tax credit then sent to the hi-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 deand what everybody else has erred because they have been responsible 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 tdo something like that can compel you to do anhing. what is the 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 fore is the social security also the program 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 spent 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 stae 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 mentioned before 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 very rarely if ever a member of the house of representatives, so what is it in your background that is going to convince the american people that on likell 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 lookt 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 andsme 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 want 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 to the

head of theamerican government in that order. and the biggest job actually is to counicate with and educate and set tandards for the american people. >> whether that means herman can deal with the complexity of congress and federal budget i s very fortunate to step down first because clinton appointed me to the commission she and i had created gether so i spent three years of the national security act of 2005 and 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 brach so i actually spent six years on a pro bono basis inside the executive branch and the strategy and rethinking the system so i have had more insight experience trying to

understand how problems are solved and what works and what doesn'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 second, the background of the national security to work with 79 and work for the dense 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 and people are fed up with anything from washington and looking for something else.

>> the reason is they are ature 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 this 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 histo. and 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 just plain 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. drew mentioned the health 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 someimes 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 te 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 dole 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 fac is 1978 indicating become an ice agei was recently at the field museum in chicago looking at dinosaurs in the antarctic. 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 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, eisenwer. >> willson. he did the game ad his dr. mix prescribed it after his first initial mild stroke and he played every morning, naim holes, he did it. >> eisenhower was e 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 website one 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 why does 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. if obama comes and says let's get rid of the ten to 14 billion in the oil exemptions would you

let anybody jump up in the business? annuity that has tried to kill ethanol on behalf of the world probly jumped up and said -- and half right by the way and i am against in fact apply overwhelmingly to the small independents who knew all the exploration in the field. on the one hand they understand exactly 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 independents to find oil and gas in fact i want to open federal land to be able to find oil and 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. >> [inaudible] >> 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 single 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 lar scale change, and our specialty was talking to 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 starting 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 house, 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 goals, 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 america. they have not necessarily -- they can be 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 position to see the bubble coming? did you write about it? >> i think if you go back and look at my speeches it wasn't obvious at the starng and initially it wasn't fannie mae and eddie 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 wod say o. these are all the things in fact dodd and frank wanted done and the other difference which doesn't seem as i wasn't in congress. i was a private citizen. private citizens are allowed to be in business, a totally different operatio i ecked 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 meand, 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 value as the state of florida and said in a passing that is a bubble.

he sold everything that he had in japan just before the u. 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 ad 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

rules 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 advocate that in every single state because the declaration of independence is central to who we are as a people. speaking would be data collecting 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 separate distinction about whether in fact -- remember we went to school with a world war ii because othe 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 bui 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 muc 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 aso meant federal

regulations you might find it was more of a break even than you think. >> in manchester we cn'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 nths 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 or 70 languages. i think in nursing in english is thfirst step towards

prosperity. >> in the 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 we have the evan patrician -- >> english. >> mr. speaker, in that cabinet of yours you've been talking about good when and the rvals so where would you put their rival mitt romney in the team? >> governor mitt romney is an extraordinarily competent manager with a 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 team 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 unequocally say no to the vice president and following ronald rean 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 nominati. so, he is the front runner or should we think anything less than winning the nomination. >> i guess no good rason 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 complent him nicely. do you have a campaign to sustain yourself with? that historians have to finish in new hampshire to go on with any hope 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 an obama and still struggng with that in may and june and i think you have to prepare for both u.s. to say it's true 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 follongs in

his positions. >> he may do surprisingly well. >> certainly as we learn more about how badthe federal reserve is and how much money if it is thrown around the plan that he has a better case 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 ink 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 morning he said flat he would not run. he said he wouldn't automaticaly guarantee the republicans so he mightbe passing that he 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 get on the ballot in 50 states and the yore 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 conservative 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 party 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 in life [inaudible] in alba conersations [inaudible conversations] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

11:30. and new england cable news. >> you will grabbed me? >> i have to go. all right. >> president obama is on the road this morning in the battleground state of new hampshire as we turn to live pictures from manchester. the president is expected to talk about his job creation initiatives here at central high school. the first in the nation presidential primary will be here. the last time the president traveled to the state was about two years ago. he was last here at this high school in 2007. today, he is expected to begin a push to extend payroll taxes, tax cuts, and his jobs initiative, and on the heels of the super committee's failing to

reach a deal on budget cuts yesterday. the president hopes to have a payroll tax the extension and a renewal of jobless benefits for the unemployed into an agreement the super committee might make. while we wait for the president, humberto sanchez joined us on this morning can't tell "washington journal." host: what happened? guest: the age-old problem of democrats supporting text increases, -- supporting tax increases, they ultimately decided it would be best not to do a deal at all.

back.let's take a step we will get a lot of reaction in a couple of minutes, but the creation of this committee, with fingers pointing to harry reid, who knew he could not get to 60 votes, so this super committee would have an up or down vote with no amendments or filibuster's turned was this a good idea or a bad idea in concept? >> we never found out because it never got to the floor. we never talk to the point where we would see if that was worth putting in the deal, because ultimately ideologies could not be over, in terms of the taxes and spending issue. including that part of that access to the floor in the deal was an effort to motivate congress to act, but ultimately

they could not work around their positions. host: let's take it from two sides. on the republican side, senator pat toomey put forth a proposal with additional revenue, not a tax increase. why did the democrats reject that? guest: democrats thought it was too little. it seemed to be an opening in the discussion because republicans initially were against any type of new revenue or increases in the code. democrats rejected it because they saw it as an opening bid, and they wanted to negotiate to a higher level. they decided they could not get any more movement from republicans on that offer. host: on the other side of the aisle, democrats were asking for a tax increase on wealthier

americans to offset spending cuts and entitlement programs. why could republicans not need halfway? guest: republicans feel that it is not good to raise taxes in a recession and a field upper- income earners are job creators and to put a tax on them would hamper the economy and that is not a good thing to do right -- right now. host: do know where the term sequester comes from? guest: at think it is a french term, but i am not sure. host: now that they did not fulfil their missish -- mission, it is gone from being a sort come to a silver lining. what happens next, and when? guest: the automatic cuts will be split evenly between defense and nondefense programs in the budget. that will go into effect in

2013. you will see an effort by people in congress to try to either change it, modify it, roll it back. senator john mccain, for example, is very concerned about what will happen to the defense department under this sequester, and has made no secret of his to roll back the sequester. host: is this another boon for the 35,000 registered lobbyists here in washington, d.c.? guest: it has given them a lot of business. there are issues that need to be protected. there are issues that need to be logged on. i think they definitely win from this. -- to be lobbied on. i think they definitely win from this. host: the two different editorials -- this is from

statements from the different congressional leaders -- speaker bair says he did everything possible. we will continue to try to find common ground with the democrats to address the single largest contributor to our deficit. how do you for the needle? guest: we will find out over the next 13 months. there still could be a deal. there is still evidence for fixing this issue. -- there is still impetus for fixing this issue. you will have the added impetus of the bush tax cuts expire in. host: senator henry reed said this morning that, for the good of our country, democrats were prepared to strike a grand bargain.

guest: i think democrats will go to their base and say we protected these entitlement programs that you rely on and we were willing to put them on the table, but, ultimately, we decided not to do a bad deal. for the democratic base, they will make that case. host: our guest is umberto sanchez -- humberto sanchez. caller: good morning. and when the air now? host: you sure are. caller: ok. i think the obama administration has ruined this country. i cannot understand why they do

not let the drilling come from canada. online trading has appalled me. that is all they think about, making money for their own self. obama has made the dollar worthless. overseas, you give people money that we do not have, like brazil, to drill, yet he does not want us to drill. i do not understand why people are so blind and listen to his allies from this administration. thank you. host: thank you for the call. guest: i think you will see the president continue to push for his jobs addendagenda. he will have trouble running against the economy as he did in the past.

but the objective now is to try to paint congress as intransigent. i think the president will try to say, i will appeal to the american people in this upcoming election to try to help them help me push the economy forward. there are a lot of people -- and republicans will try to paint him with this bad economy. host: a number of stores this morning said that the white house made a concerted effort not to get overly involved with the super committee. guest: i think there is a calculation that he was told by certain democrats that, if you became too involved, you would over politicize it and it would be more difficult to get a deal. but there are communications

regularly from the white house and the committee members. host: john has this point. he says republicans need to put their oath to support and defend the constitution and break their pact with the devil, a k, grover norquist. they have just to ensure their own defeat in 2012. thank god. as a democrat, i thought the president had given too much. guest: i think there will be a lot of frustration from the electorate. rightly so. this entire committee was set up to try to find a way around something that congress could not. it failed pin now they're throwing it back to congress. optimism is very low for how this gets solved. host: ron joins us from new hampshire where the president will be later today. caller: good morning.

i would like to start up by saying bus c-span 2 and you give america the opportunity to voice opinions. instead of finger-pointing between republicans and democrats, there's so much of it, we are very smart people. we are americans, by golly. i think we can come up with a solution. this may sound a little stupid, but what do you think about a global reset the date? it appears that all the countries around the world are heavy in debt. on january 1,, 2012, all countries claim bankruptcy. that means that everybody would be downgraded so nobody would actually be any different from their neighbors as well as everybody's that would be reset back to zero. it is just numbers. what would that do for the

economy if we all started fresh, a brand new? thank you very much. think about a. >> guest: -- think about it. guest: i think that would have a real the trip around the world. the banks would have to eat bad debt. jobs would be lost. i think that would not be a good way to move forward. host: way have the answer, sequester. to place in the hands of a trustee. another definition is to place in seclusion or isolation. there you have it. ron joins us from new york city on the independent line. caller: good morning. how're you today? guest: good, thank you. caller: a couple of things make it difficult to solve any problem.

first, the degree of dogma that underlies the principles of both parties. the one thing that i really question is the idea that, by lowering taxes, you increase employment or by raising taxes year increase employment. i think that this is all dogma on part of the parties. whether employment have been some increase or decrease, it depends on what kind of industry there is. at this point, there is no industry in this country anymore. so i do not know that there is any hope for that. the other question is that -- i remember president george w. bush talking about the iraq war pay for as a result of revenues

obtained from the war -- oil revenues obtained from the war. whatever happened to those ideas? i appreciate your opinion on this subject. host: thank you for the call. guest: that was one way they wanted to pay for the iraq war. the iraqi government is still trying to a place where it can collect those revenues. i think they have a lot of infrastructure and institutions to build in order to have a viable government. as far as ideologies go, i guess america has been debating these issues since its founding. these upcoming few elections

will be important. americans will get to weigh in on what kind of government they want could ultimately, these are big issues that are debated in the committee. the voters really need to voice their opinion on how these things should be resolved. host: often, there are editorials saying that business and drive the day. this is one. next to that is this chart. the real driver in the deficit. this is a health care spending curve that is growing a trajectory of pill and then this record shows discretionary spending, defense and non-

defense, holding flat. health care spending in discretionary spending is a shared gdp. -- is a share of gdp. guest: the idea behind the health care law that was enacted a couple of years ago was to try to drive down the cost of health care. many of the provisions have not kicked in. the hope is that, once they do, the line will be curved downward. host: washington's super failure is the editorial is moaning in the "washington post." one of our viewers says that the agenda is to remove president obama from office.

john is on the phone. caller: a couple of observations. i do not know if you understood it. i am a retired military pilot. my retirement, along with all of the other millions of military retirees, comes from the department of defense budget. unlike any other federal retiree, that money is a part of the dod budget. when it comes down to whether we support readiness or we support retirees, it does not very -- does not take very long to figure out what will happen. also, a portion of my medical coverage comes from that retirement. the rest comes from social security, which, as a military member, i paid into for all the years i worked. i also paid for my military retirement as a pilot, making a

lot less money than i could have made as an airline pilot. i've put up with wars, getting shot at -- i was in vietnam and i was in the gulf war. the commander-in-chief has painted a big target on the back of every military person and every military retiree because they will cut what we have fought for. i would just like to have your comments on that. thank you very much for c-span. host: thank you. guest: i think john is right. retired veterans do have a reason to be concerned. if this does take effect and the decision is between military readiness and retired veterans, i think they will get the short end of the sick. host: from new jersey --

guest: republicans liked to take the metal by saying that this is a lack of leadership -- take the mantle by saying that this is a lack of leadership and all the democrats to not agree, and there was something to their narrative where they said that over malmo by the white house would have made even more difficult to -- over involvement by the white house would have made it even more difficult to get a deal. host: is called the super committee collapse.

the only reason the committee failed, writes the new york times, is because the republicans refused to raise taxes on rich . to the caller's point about the military, expect to hear a huge rally from our good friends in the military contracting business on capitol hill, mostly republicans who will try to use every budgetary chokepoint to undo the defense sequester. guest: i have heard that there could be an effort in the house to try to undo the sequester as soon as next month. host: next caller is richard from massachusetts. caller: everybody is blaming obama for everything that is going on and everything that is bad. but when he became president in

2008, he came into two wars that really hurt our deficit. they want to knock him out of the presidency. the republicans want to knock him out so they will not pass anything or go along with anything he says. so how can you hold that against him? and the health care, who will pay if i do not have health care? who will pay the bill when i am sick or when i have to go to the hospital? they are knocking all this stuff out pip if they cut social security, what am i supposed to live on? the government? but government cannot even make decisions on their own. how will they make decisions for me or for anybody else in the country? and this norquist, who is he? norquist is nothing. they say that he has more say than anybody in the united states. he shouldn't even be there. he is not an elected official. he has not anything to do with anything. he makes deals with lobbyists

and congress and he puts the miniblind where they sign things and they hold it to the committee. -- he puts them into these bines where they sign things and they hold it to the committee. i was a construction worker. i have friends that are willing to go back to work. we cannot go back to work. host: thank you for the call. if the deficit paddle thank you, talks shift to costs. guest: he is right to be concerned. there is no deal to curb the deficit. this is a reason for concern for a lot of americans. however, even if they did get a deal, at $1.20 trillion, the

deficit is such that even more painful cuts will have to be made down the road. this is probably the beginning of a difficult path we will have to go down. host: the market was down significantly after day. featured is a photograph of democrat john kerry. there were some negotiations led by senator kerry. what was it over? guest: i believe there were trying to do it possible last- minute deal that included some tax revenue. but i think it was quickly dismissed by republicans. host: the deficit pals failure -- you can join the conversation on line on twitter. caller: i have two points i

would like to make. on "60 minutes" sunday, the had a multi millionaire who said that two hundred million as went to washington last week and they said to put the taxes that bush gave back to where it was in clinton's time. and the bush tax break made no impact on him whatsoever. the line that you cannot raise taxes on job creators sounds good, but it is not true at all. i wish c-span would have millionaires on there. let's hear from them. we keep hearing people say to put congress on social security and medicare. i agree with that. that would fix a lot of problems in this country. but congress will never do that. how do we force them? how do we make that happen?

congress should not have such rich in tenements. there's not enough money left to take care of yourselves. guest: in part, that was part of the rationale of setting up the sequester. the idea was to make the cuts so onerous that congress would have no other choice but to make these decisions that would not be a jolt to the system, but would ramp down the deficit. >> you can see this segment in its entirety on our website. we will go back live now to manchester, new hampshire for remarks from president obama. he is expected to discuss his jobs initiative. this is live coverage on c-span. host [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [cheers and applause]

>> hello, new hampshire. it is great to be back. he reminded me of what i said to

him for years ago, almost to the day when i was here. it was snowing that day. surprising enough, there was a snowstorm in new hampshire. we had to leave a little bit early and we were not able to do everything we wanted in talking with some of the students. we were worried that some of the folks would be disappointed. i promised him that i would be back. [cheers and applause] we are keeping our promise. we are back. in addition, i want to acknowledge these superintendent, tom brennan, who is here with his lovely wife wendy. please give them a big round of applause. [applause] happy thanksgiving a little bit early, everybody. theunderstand we have senior class from central high. [cheers and applause]

[chanting] [laughter] >> all right, all right. you guys are pretty excited about being seniors, yoare you not? [cheers and applause] i want to thank also someone who is doing outstanding work each and every day. he is now one of your most outstanding senators in the aheen.y, gene sh [cheers and applause] before i came to school today, i

had coffee. [cheering] [protesters yelling] >> that is ok. that is ok. all right. ok, guys. [chanting] >> obama! obama! obama! >> i will be talking about a

whole range of things today. i appreciate you guys making your point. let me go ahead and make mine. [cheers and applause] what i was saying is that i was having some coffee with some of your neighbors. one of them were the corkers. even though a visit fermi tends to disrupt things, he wanted me to remind his students that you still have a homer to do. [laughter] -- some homework to do. [laughter] he is also a colonel. i could not think him enough for

his service. obviously, we know that our service members, our veterans, they are the ones to keep us safe. they're the ones to preserve our freedom. [cheers and applause] and fact, this holiday season will be a season of homecomings for folks all across america appeared by the end of next month, all of the troops will be out of iraq. [cheers and applause] over coffee, we were joined by his wife cathy, who owns part of a local business. they have two sons. they are trying to save for their son's college education. like millions of families across the country, they're doing the best they can in some tough times. families like them, families

like yours, young people like the ones here today, including the ones you're just chanting that may, your the reason i ran for office in the first place. [cheers and applause] it is folks like you why i spend so much time of year in the dead of winter for years ago. we were going through a difficult >decade for the middle-class. johnson manufacturing was leaving our shores. -- jobs and manufacturing were leaving our shores. there were homes or not properly financed. families solve their incomes fall. everything from college to health care, the cost kept going up hill.

and then the financial crisis hit. that made things even tougher. today, many americans have spent months looking for work. others are doing the best they can to get by. there are a lot of folks out there who cannot do that anymore because they have to save on gas or make the mortgage. there are families who are putting off retirement so they can make sure their kids go to college. and those who did go to college got into a bunch of dead and are unable to find opportunity. -- budget? -- bunch of debt and are unable to find opportunity. there is a profound sense of frustration about the fact that the essence of the american

dream, which is if you work hard, if you stick to it, you can make. it feels like that is slipping away. that is not the way it is supposed to be. not here. not in america. [applause] this is a place where your hard work and your responsibility is supposed to pay off. it is supposed to be a big compassionate country where everybody who works hard should have a chance to get ahead, not just the person who owns the factory, but the men and women who work on the factory floor. [cheers and applause] this is a place that -- when we say fundamental, we stay true to a fundamental idea, the idea that we are all in this together. that is what we are fighting for. that is what is at stake right now.

so we have been weathering some hard years. we have been taking some tough punches. but one thing i know about folks in manchester and folks in new hampshire and folks across the country is that we are tough. we are fighting back. we're moving forward. and we will get this right so that every single american has opportunity in this country. [cheers and applause] we will not have an america were only a sliver of folks have opportunity. we will have an america where everybody has an opportunity. and that will take some time. our economic problems were not caused overnight and they will not be prepared overnight. it will take time to rebuild an economy that the store's

security for the middle class -- that restores security for the middle class. it will take time to rebuild an economy not based on outsourcing, tax loopholes, risky financial deals, but one that is built to last, where we invest in education and small business and manufacturing and making things that the rest of the world is willing to buy. [applause] we will get it done. we will get there. right now, we have to do everything we can to put our friends and neighbors back to work and help families get ahead and get the economy the jolt that its needs. that is why, two months ago, i sent congress the american jobs that. it would put more money back in the pockets of americans and more americans back to work. it is full of the kinds of ideas that have been supported

by democrats and republicans in the past. it is paid for by asking our wealthiest citizens to pay their fair share. [cheers and applause] independent economists said it would create nearly 2 million jobs, grow the economy by an extra 2%. that is not my opinion can that is not my team's opinion. that is the opinion of folks who evaluate these things for a living. in washington, they do not seem to get the message, that people care about putting folks back to work and getting young people opportunity. so when this bill came up for a vote, republicans in the senate got together and blocked it. they refused to even debated. 100% of republicans opposed it even though two-thirds of americans supported the idea is

in this bill. not one republican in washington was willing to say it was the right thing to do, not one. what we have done is refused to quit. i said i will do everything in my power to act on behalf of the american people with or without congress. [cheers and applause] over the past several weeks, we have taken steps on our own to give working americans a leg up in a tough economy. we announced on our own any policy that will help families refinance their mortgage and save thousands of dollars. a lot of the young people in new york and around the country are worried about student loans. on our own, without congress,

we reduced the loan process to make it easier for students to repay their debt. [cheers and applause] that was building on top of legislation we created a year ago -- instead of sending $60 billion to banks to manage the student loan program, let's give it directly to students so that millions more young people can afford a college education. [cheers and applause] we enacted several new initiatives to help veterans find new jobs and get training for those new jobs. i was up in minnesota and met a young man who had been an emergency medic in iraq, saving lives under the most severe circumstances. he came home and he was having

to take nursing class is all over again even though, for the last two years, he had been saving lives in the field. he did not get any credit for it. so we're making changes to say, if your qualified to save a life in the battlefield, you can save a life in an ambulance. [cheers and applause] yesterday, i signed into law two new tax breaks for businesses who hire american veterans. nobody who fights for mayor of overseas should have to fight for a job when they come home. [cheers and applause] i proposed these tax breaks back in september as part of my jobs bill. thank you to folks leg and gene and some republicans, we

got this through. but we have to do more to get folks back to work and rebuild an economy that works for everybody. next week, congress will have another chance to do the right thing. congress will have another chance to say yes to helping working families. last year, both parties came together to cut payroll taxes for the typical household by $1,000 this year. that has been showing up in your paychecks each week. you may not know it, but it has been showing up because of the action we took. which reminds me, by the way, the next time you hear one of these folks from the other side talking about raising your taxes, remind them that, ever since i have gone into office, i have lowered your taxes. that is worth reminding them. [cheers and applause]

but this payroll tax is set to expire at the end of next month. at the end of the year, this tax cut ends. if we allow that to happen, if congress refuses to act, then middle-class families will get hit with a tax increase at the worst possible time. for the average family, your tax will go up $1,000 if congress does not act by the end of the month. we cannot let that happen. not right now. it would be bad for the economy. it would be bad for employment. that is why my jobs bill extends that tax cut. it does one better. it extends the tax cuts. instead of just $1,000 in tax cuts next year, the average working family would get a tax cut of more than $1,500. [applause] that is $1,500 that would be

taken out of your paycheck and instead will go into your pocket. that would increase business for small business. maybe then they could expand. say you have 50 employees making $50,000 apiece. you get a tax cut of nearly $80,000. that is real money that you can use to hire new workers or buy new equipment. in the senatens an voted no on my jobs bill. but in the spirit of thanksgiving, we will give them another chance. [cheers and applause] next week, they will get to take a simple vote. if they vote no again, the

typical family taxes will go up $1,000 next year. if they vote yes, the typical working family will get a $1,500 tax cut. i just wanted to be clear for everybody. no, your taxes go up. yes, you get a tax cut. which way do you think that congress should vote to? >> yes! >> you can see what each vote would mean for your bottom line. i know republicans like to talk about being the party of tax cuts. a lot of them have sworn that they will never raise taxes as long as they live. even though they have already voted against these tax cuts ones. but the question there will have to answer when they get back from thanksgiving is this -- are they really willing to break their oath to never raise taxes and raise taxes on the middle class just to play politics?

i sure hope not. this is not about who wins or loses in washington. this is about delivering a win for the american people. [cheers and applause] a $1,500 tax cut for middle- class families, that is a big deal for people. have any business owners could stand to see their customers taking $1,000 less next year? that is less than that they can spend on small businesses. how many of you could use an extra $1,000? [cheers and applause] an extra $1,500 in your pocket? it makes a big difference for families here in new hampshire and all across america. keep in mind that we will do it responsibly. all like several tax cuts

instituted over the past several years -- unlike several tax cuts instituted over the past several years, they will be paid for. the folks who made it through the recession better than most of folks who have seen their incomes go up much more quickly than anybody else over the last three decades, exponentially, we are asking them to contribute a little bit more to get our economy working for everybody. we are asking people -- [cheers and applause] we are asking people like me and to pay our fair share so that middle-class families can get a tax cut. and i think that most americans are willing to do their part. the truth of the matter is that

i cannot tell you how many well- to-do americans that i meet say to me, look, i want to do more because i know that the only reason i am doing well is because somewhere along the line somebody gave me a good education, somewhere along , somebody gave me a college scholarship, somewhere along the line, somebody gave me a chance and i'll want to do the same thing for the young people who are coming up now. that is what america is all about. [cheers and applause] so congress has a very simple choice next week. do you want to cut taxes for the middle class and those trying to get into the middle class or do you want to protect massive tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires who actually want to help? do you want to help working families get back on solid ground and a working economy for

all of us or do you want to raise taxes on 160 million americans during the holidays? when push comes to shove, are you willing to fight as hard for working families as you are for the wealthiest americans? what will it be? that is the choice. as i look around this room and see these young people, i also see their parents. folks in manchester, you guys work hard. you play by the rules. [cheers and applause] you are meeting your responsibilities. and if you are working hard and meeting your responsibilities, at the very least, you should expect congress to do the same. they should be doing everything in their power to make our economy stronger, not weaker. they should be doing everything

they can to protect the middle class from tax hikes, not hike your taxes. this is where you can help. you remember the congress. they work for you. you have an upstanding senator here. she is already on the program. [applause] for everyone who is here or watching that long or online, if your members of congress are not delivering, you have to make them listen. tell them to not be a bridge. do not raise taxes on working americans during the holidays. put country before party. put the money back in the hands of working families. do your job. past the jobs bill. the american people are with us on this. it is time for those who spend their time talking about what is wrong with america to spend some

time rolling up their sleeves and rebuilding our middle class and give young people opportunity -- [cheers and applause] there is nothing wrong with this country that we cannot fix. i was just traveling in asia over the last week. let me tell you, this is the fastest-growing region in the world. but what was amazing was how everybody is still looked to america. they did a poll in asia. what do you think about america? eight out of nine countries in asia said america is the country we look to. they understand that this experiment in democracy, this

belief that everybody can make it if they try, this belief in a broad middle class that lets everybody up, not just some -- that lifts everybody else, not just some, makes a match the more powerful than anybody else. but we need folks in washington who have that same belief, that same sense of that, when this economy is going well, it is going well because it is going well for everybody. and when it goes well for everybody, it is good for folks at the top as well as folks in the bottom. and it is certainly good for folks in the middle. [applause] so those values that built this country, those values that all of you represent, that is what we are fighting for.

that is what the american jobs at is all about. we have to constantly remind ourselves about who we are and what we believe in. we are american. our story has never been about doing things easy. it is doing what is right, fighting for the moment when the moment is hard, making sure that everybody has a chance, not just a few. so let's do the right thing. let's meet the moment. the best days of the united states of america are still ahead of us. god bless us. god bless the united states of america. [cheers and applause] ♪

♪

♪

♪

♪

♪

>> see more videos of the candidates on the c-span website. from the earliest events to the latest campaigns, from social meta sides and link to c-span's media sites. >> there was a flood in fort wayne. people were filling sandbags, desperately trying to keep the river -- as soon as one

stopped, then had a motorcade down to the flooding area. he took off his jacket. he filled three sandbags, said hello and hi to everyone, got back in the car and got back on the airplane. it was reagan filling sandbags with his shirt off. >> on thanksgiving day, sam donaldson, andrea mitchell, and chris dodd talk about the legacy of ronald reagan. they discuss the american dream and the opportunities in the u.s. could john glenn and neil armstrong and buzz aldrin and -- >> from the miami book fair international last weekend -- >> miami was center stage in the bay of pigs. this is where the cia went to recruit