keeps them alope? no. this is after you factor in the loopholes and exemptions. united states, 27.7%. the 58 other countries in the oecd, the group of economically developed countries from around the world, the people who are competitors in the global marketplace, their average rate, 19.5%. 19.5%. our friends in the european union, you probably have been following them, they have this breed of socialism that's pervasive over there, putting business out one by one, you think they have a really big tax rate. no, they're just 21.9%. the biggest tax rate belongs to the home of the free and land of the brave. you don't need an economist to sort this out. mr. speaker, you know if you charge employers more to stay here they're going to do what? leave. . and if we charge employers less

in america, they are going to do what? they are going to stay and more importantly they are going to come. they are going to come. the tax code is a business opportunity. it does not have to be a burden. we have simply made it a burden in this country. this map shows you what the global tax rates are around the globe. we are here in orange, in the 30% to 39% rate, we are actually at 39. we are at the highest of the orange countries. look who is 10 to 19. here up here around 40 in america. look at our friends to the north. anybody been to canada recently? it's not a bad place. they got good schools, good energy infrastructure. wars don't break out there very often. nobody's out to get them. it's pretty pleasant. they charge businesses about half what we charge for them to have the pleasure of doing business there. i'm just asking, mr. speaker, you see the young people that

come through this capitol, ask them, where would you start your business? would you start it in the country that has the 40% tax rate? or would you start it in the country that has the 20% tax rate? businesses don't pay taxes. consumers pay taxes. when we burden our businesses we not only reduce the number of jobs available in this country but we reduce the competitiveness of our goods overseas and that's where the american competitive future lies. we must become the exporter to the world and we cannot do it when we hide taxes in the price for everything we pay. if you ever walked up to a coke machine, i am from atlanta and we are the home of coca-cola, and i would like to say wonderful things about coca-cola and do on a regular basis, but when i walk up to a vending machine out here on independence avenue and there is a coke machine there and pepsi machine there, the price is always the same whether you want to buy a coke or pepsi. why is that? why is that? why is the price the same?

why doesn't coke decide they are going to make money and charge $2 while pepsi is charging $1. why doesn't coke charge $5? the answer is competition. there comes a time when you cannot sell your product because the price is too high. these orange nations are raising the price of those products. the green nations are lowering the price of their products. look at the green. it's our neighbors in canada, in europe. we cannot compete today with this tax road. who gets to change it? how hard is it, mr. speaker? where do we have to go to find the wisdom to change the tax code? good news. it's right here. right here with us in this body. we can erase the code and start fresh tomorrow. mr. speaker, people talk about these things as if they are unattainable. as if they are unattainable. the income tax started. it hasn't always been in this country, it started in the early part of the 19th century. we can stop it just as

effectively as they started it. we get to choose. look here at the top 75 countries. are you going to have a tough time reading it, mr. speaker. this is 75 nations around the world ranked by how easy it is for businesses to pay taxes in those countries. ranked by the ease of tax compliance. let's see we got a lot of smart guys in america, maybe up here at number one. no, hong kong number three. that's a thriving economy. ireland, number five. we got canada here. we knew they were going to do well. denmark, switzerland. there's america. over in column number four at number 69. mr. speaker, it's an embarrassment. top 75 countries by ease of paying your tax bill, america is number 69. there are dictators in these other countries that write the tax code.

there are monarchs in these other countries that write the tax code. we are the land of the free and home of the brave, we write the tax code. we have written the jobs off one by one by one. stop the nonsense about growing jobs and you are still running jobs out. keep the jobs we've got and the new jobs will come. we can fix this. 69 out of 183 countries. america ranks. and in terms of the level of the corporate income tax, the level, 131 out of 183. people wonder, they ask the question all the time, why are jobs leaving america? i don't think government can stop it. government's stopping it. government's causing it. get that. government's causing it. and we can stop it. and we must. what you might be thinking, good news, rob. at least if we got this terribly

burdensome tax code and at least if we got the highest corporate rates in the world, at least if we are doing things more stringently than anyone else on the planet is doing them, we must be getting a lot of money for it. businesses must be paying tons here. well, no. no. revenues as a percent of g.d.p., you saw the us us in red. we are down at the bottom. for all the pain and suffering we put businesses through to make them pay their taxes, for the jobs we lose in this country because businesses know it's too complicated to do business here, we don't get much more it. interesting sideline, mr. speaker, if you go over to the former soviet block countries, you'll find most have flat taxes these days. flat tax, consumption tax, sales tax, all these taxes that we know generate job growth. we can't get one in america, but the former soviet block countries got one. they all got them. why? because they were starting new

countries where they could start from scratch and do it any way they wanted to. when you start from scratch, you end up with a flat tax, you end up with a consumption tax, end up with something that's going to grow your economy instead of punish it. we are punishing our economy and not getting a thing for it. mr. speaker, h.r. 25 is the fair tax. h.r. 25, folks can find it at thomas.loc.gov, that's the library of congress website that does the legislation, posts it all for the americans to see. it's only about 1500 pages long. short read. not 75,000 but 115 pages long. talking about what we could do if we had the will to do it. i think we do have the will. we have more co-sponsors of fair tax than any other tax bill in the house. the senate, the senate version of fair tax, more co-sponsors on the senate version of fair tax than any other fundamental tax reform bill in the senate.

we can do it, mr. speaker. but it's a heavy lift. and if folks have suggestions, mr. speaker, if you would encourage folks, it's about the fair tax, they know how we can get this country back on track, if they can send an email to fair tax at mail.house.gov you'll be able to see it. if that's about energy independence and how we can change national security in this country, reclaim all of the bounty with which god has bestowed this country, energy independence at mail.house.gov, mr. speaker, is an email address that folks can send their edecember about how we can get this going forward. i am certain as i am the sky is blue that the best idea for saving america in this time of crisis, mr. speaker, they are more likely to come from the family dinner table back home than the committee hearing room here. that's who we are here. we are just folks who used to be at the family dinner table back home and we have taken two years out of our lives to come up here and be a part of a larger

discussion, but the good ideas still come from back home. mr. speaker, folks would send in those ideas we can begin to change this chameber one seat at a time of the we can begin to affect this process one member of congress at a time. members of congress don't change their minds or change their votes because of lobbyists on capitol hill, no. they change their minds and change their votes because of lobbyists back home. and that lobbyist is named sally, the pharmacist. and that lobbyist is named steve who works at the foundry. those lobbyists are the individual voters back home. that's what affects change in this place. that's what causes change to happen in washington, d.c. the american people still run this republic. i see it every day. mr. speaker, if the american people would reclaim this house, reclaim this house by reclaiming their representatives, by pushing forward those commonsense ideas we don't need the congress to tell us we know

it to be true. we can reclaim this country. i'm not telling you it can happen overnight. i'm not telling you it's going to be easy, but if there's one thing i am certain about about america, mr. speaker, is in times of crisis we get the job done. if there's one thing i know about the american family it's you tell the american family they can't and they will. we can do it, mr. speaker. 300 million americans together can do this, but their ideas have to be heard here. this big freshman class i would argue is doing a better job of making the families' hopes and dreams heard on capitol hill than we have seen in my lifetime. but we can still do better. fair tax at mail.house.gov. energy independence at mail.house.gov. we will get those ideas heard. mr. speaker, i'm grateful to you for providing the time. i yield back the balance.

the speaker pro tempore: i thank the gentleman. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed h.r. 2192, cited as the national guard and reservist debt relief extension act of 2011. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. bartlett, for 30 minutes.

mr. bartlett: mr. speaker, on the 15th day of march -- the 8th day of march of 1956 a scientist, geologist by the name of m. king hubbard spoke to an audience in san antonio, texas. the audience was a bunch of oil people. he gave what i think is going to be recognized as the most important speech of the last century. it was really a very audacious

speech. at that time the united states was king of oil. we produced more oil. we sold more oil. and we consumed more oil than any nation in the world. and m. king hubbard told that group of oil geologists and company executives that in just 14 short years the united states would reach its maximum oil production. that no matter what they did after that, their oil production would decline. this was an incredible speech. essentially no one believed it. because as i said at that time the united states was the king of oil. producing more, shipping more,

consuming more than any other nation in the world. for a number of years m. king hubbard was a pariah, nobody believed him. he was kind of rell debated -- relegated to the lunatic fringe. and then in 1980, 10 years after his rediction, the united states -- prediction, the united states would reach its maximum oil production, you could look back and what you saw is shown on this chart. and this of course goes out beyond that year. what you see what you see is what happened there. after 1970 the production fell off. no matter what we did -- now, there was a little blip on the down side because we found a lot

of oil in alaska. you can see it there on the chart. and we found a lot of oil in the gulf of mexico. the yellow that you see there. it was a little blip on the down slope and m. king hubbard had not included in his predictions the oil that we would find in alaska and the gulf of mexico, he included overwhelm the lower 48. . this chart shows where that oil came from. a lot of it came from texas, with the biggest single source of oil, the first oil of course was found in pennsylvania. part of the rest of the u.s.a. and then you have natural gas liquids on the top and as we found and used more and more natural gas, the natural gas liquids increased. that's not gas in your gas tank, that's propane and bu -- butane and things like that. this is something that could hardly have been believed.

how could a country as creative and innovative as the united states possibly not be able to continue to produce more and more oil when they needed more and more oil? what m. king hubbard did is a pretty simple thing. oil had been pumped for long enough, 50 years or so by that time, that they had some idea what went on in an oil field. and the production in an individual oil field followed kind of a bell-shaped curve. as you pump the fields you got more and more and then when you reach the top it became harder and harder to get the oil out and so it fell off as you wept down the other side of the bell curve. so what he reasoned was, if i can make some estimate of how many oil fields there will be in the united states, and i add up

all the little oil fields, all those little bell curves, i'll get a big bell curve and that will tell me when we're going to reach our maximum production in the united states. just about a year later another speech was given and i don't know if these two gentlemen knee each -- knew each other at all, but this other speech was given by the father of our nuclear submarine, hyman rickover. and hyman rickover spoke to a group of physicians, the audience is irrelevant, he spoke to a group of physicians in st. paul, minnesota. and he said some things that should have been self-evident, but obviously they weren't because nobody else was saying them, nobody else has said them much since then. what he said in this speech was that in the 8,000-year recorded history of man, the age of oil

would be but a blip. and he referred to it as this golden age. here are a few quotes from that speech. and by the way, you can find it on the internet. if you simply google rickover and energy speech it will come up. it was lost for a number of years and a few years ago it was found and put on the internet. and what he says here, there is nothing man can do to rebuild exhausted fossil fuel reserves. they were created by solar energy, he says, 500 million years ago and took eons to grow to their present volume. in the face of the basic fact that fossil fuel reserves are finite, they will run out. the exact length of time these reserves will last is important in only one respect. the longer they last, the more time that we have to invent ways of living off renewable or substitute energy sources and to

adjust our economy to the vast changes which we can expect from such a shift. now this would seem to be, you know, this obviously, obviously the moon isn't made out of green cheese and the earth isn't made out of oil. it is finite. one day it will run out. and so it is obvious that one day one will have to come to grips with this. you have to find alternative energy sources. just when is that time for the world? when we ran out of our ability to produce more oil when we wanted more oil was in 1970. but the united states was the first great industrialized nation and so we would expect that we would reach that point before the rest of the world. just when would the rest of the world reach that point? fossil fuels, i love this statement, fossil fuels represent capital in the bank. a prudent and responsible parent

will use his capital sparringly in order to pass on to his children as much as possible of his inheritance. a selfish and irresponsible parent will squander it in riotous living and not care what one whip about how his offspring will fair. i have 10 children and 17 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. particularly my great-chand children and some of my grandchildren -- great-grandchildren and some of my grandchildren will look back and ask themselves, how could they have done it? how could they have gone on feverishly looking for and drilling for oil? when it was obvious that it was finite, when it was obvious that there would come a time that we would have to transition from oil to alternative sources of energy? now, this is a warning from the

past, but that wasn't the only warning that we were going to have. because your government has paid for four separate studies of this problem. and the phenomenon is called peak oil. that's the time at which you reach your maximum production, capability, and after that, no matter what you do, production will fall off. as we saw earlier, that happened in the united states in 1970. by the way, by 1980 it was painfully obvious that m king -- m. king hubbard was right because we really did peak in 1970, didn't we? and we're tipped over and starting down the other side now. the government paid for four studies. why four? because they didn't like what the first one said and so they ordered another one and didn't like what this one said so a third and then a fourth. i have quotes here from two of

those studies. the first of those studies was a -- was a study by is -- saic and the primary author of that study was robert her, and it's usually refer -- hersch and it's usually referred to as the hersch report. it issued in 2005. and these are just a couple of quotes from that world production of conventional oil will reach a maximum and decline thereafter. that maximum is called the peak. a number of confident forecasters project peaking within a decade. others contend will it -- it will occur later. condition of the peaking is very difficult because of geological complexities, measurement problems, pricing variations, demand elasticity and political influences.

peaking will happen. but the timing is uncertain. the world, they said, has never faced a problem like this. without massive mitigation, more than a decade before the fact, before peaking occurs, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary. we had a temporary problem with the arab oil embargo in the 197s to. this will not -- 1970's. this will not be temporary. previous energy transitions, wood to coal and coal to oil, were gradual and evolutionary. oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary, the report said. we were very comfortable living

in this golden age, it is referred to by the father of our nuclear submarine, hyman rickover. he noted that the incredible amount of energy and oil permitted us to live a very high quality life, as chaired to -- compared to our ancestors who had not yet found how to tap into the enormous riches of fossil fuelless. when i first heard this statistic i was stunned. i said to myself, it can't be true. one barrel of oil, that's 42 gallons, one barely of oil has the energy equivalent of 25,000 man hours of effort. that's 12 people working all year. a barrel of oil. has the energy equivalent of 12 people working all year long.

wow, that seems incredible, doesn't it? and then i thought, i drive a prius and it takes me about 50 miles on a gallon of gasoline. not very big. gallon of gasoline. now, i could pull my prius that 50 miles but it would take me a long time. with the chains and hooking to the guard rail and trees, i could get the prius about 50 miles. wow, i saids maybe -- i said maybe there are 25,000 man hours of work in one barrel of oil. now, it wasn't very long ago that oil was worth $12 a barrel. that means that you could buy the life-enhancing effects of having a full-time certificate vent work for you -- servant work for you all year long and you could buy it at the well head for $1. and if you look around the world

and see the quality of life that most of the world, as people, live, it's really quite incredible compared to the quality of life that our ancestors live before they found how to tap into the enormous potential of fossil fuels. there is another report which issued in 2005 and that was the report by the corps of engineers and here is a quote from that report. in general, all nonrenewable resources follow a natural, simple curve. production increases rapidly, swallowed, reaches a peak and then declines at a rapid pace similar to its initial increase. this is the bell curve. the cunch that -- the curve that m. king hubbard had noted that permitted him to make his prediction as to when the united states would reach its maximum oil production.

the major question for petroleum is not whether production will peak but when it will peak. there are many estimates of recoverable petroleum reserves. giving rise to many estimates of when peak oil will occur and how high the peak will be. a careful review of all the estimates leads to the conclusion that world oil production may peak within a few short years. after which it will decline. your government didn't like what these two studies said so there were two more studies ordered. one from the government accountability office and the fourth one from the national petroleum council. i do not have quotes from these two but they say essentially the same thing. that the peaking of oil is inevitable with potentially catastrophic consequences.

since your government didn't want to hear what these reports said, it didn't pay any attention to what the reports said and we have gone on with policies of drill, baby, drill. just recently there have been two more reports that tell us where we are, they also look at where we have been. and they make their prediction of where we are going. the first of these reports is the one on top and that they issued in 2008. and the people who issued it were the iaea, the international energy association, they are a creture of the oecd, a consortium of major investor

countries. there is a similar organization, the energy information administration which is a part of our department of energy and they do similar things and have published similar curves. so this is the i.e.a., the international agency energy. the blue part of the chart here represents conventional oil. now, if they had a long enough chart it would go back here about 100 or more years and we started pumping way back here when we didn't need much and so we didn't pump much. and every time we needed more oil, we could find more oil, we could pump more oil and we've been doing that now for right at 150 years. and so here we are now and what they show in this chart, that total liquid fuels, that's the line up here, has been

plateaued. you can see it's flat there. 84 million barrels a day. we've been stuck there for five years now. we're in a recession worldwide. we aren't using as much oil as we might use. and so oil hovers near $100 a barrel. a a couple three years ago when the world was using our economy, the price of oil dropped to $40 a barrel. but the reality of the supply compared to the demand the price has steadily rose until oil is right at $100 a birl now. what this chart showed was a fairly significant drop off in the production of oil from our conventional oil field. this is following the same curve that was followed by the united states after 1970. so our 1970 plateau is the

word's plateau that occurred in about 2005 to 2009, something like that. the chart shows several other contributions. liquid fuels pop on here. natural gas liquids, you saw that in the previous chart that's propane and butane. and liquids like that. the green one one is nonconventional oil, that is growing and that will grow. that's oil from plays like the oil sands where they have a lift there that -- shovel that lift 100 tons at a time and dumps into a truck that hauls 400 tons. they heat it up so the oil will flow. it won't flow otherwise. they have a large amount of what

we call stranded natural gas. stranded natural gas is natural gas that is where you don't have very many people. since it can't be moved, it's not a liquid, it's a gas, it's difficult to move long distances, so it's cheaper when it's stranded. so they are using this stranded natural gas as an energy source to warm this oil up so that it will flow. the next little wedge there, dark red wedge is part of the dark blue. enhanced oil recovery. additional oil we get by pumping steam down there or seawater down there, pushing co-2 down there to push it out. enhanced oil recovery that is growing. that will grow because we are finding -- then they show two wedges to keep this production line going up because they think it should go up. so we'll just find some oil so it will go up. the light blue area is the oil from the fields we found but are

too difficult to develop. like the field in the gulf of mexico that is under 7,000 feet of water and 30,000 feet of rock. it's way down there. as the price of oil goes up, why more and more of these fields will be feezeably, economically developed. the right -- feasibly, economically developed. the right wedge there a wedge of fields yet to be discovered because they predicted we cannot get enough oil from the fields we had discovered but are too difficult to develop now so we'll need to find some new fields. notice by 2030 they are predicted we would rise from our current 84 million barrels of oil a day to about 106 million barrels of oil a day. now, this same organization, the i.e.a., issued another chart two

years later in 2010, and this chart is pretty different. it shows the same plateau. a little dip here is it starting down or an undulation at the plateau? they have reversed the prop 2 contributions and given them different colors, but they are the same thing. this is natural gas liquids, the purple one. and the yellow one is nonconventional oil production. notice that they don't show the little red for enhanced oil recovery. they have included where it ought to be, simply as part of the production from the current oil fields. and notice they go out to 35, they go out five years further. and they show a really precipitous reduction in the amount of oil that we are going to get from the fields that we

are presently pumping. so to keep this curve going up because it must go up if the world is going to have any opportunity for a growing economy, to keep the curve going up they are predicting two huge wedges that will come from the fields that we have now discovered, too difficult to develop, and fields yet to be discovered. there is little confidence that these prognostications will occur. the united states could not do this. we are the most creative, innovative society in the world. and we could not reverse the decline of oil production in our country. and most of those who are serious students in this area do not believe that these two wedges will occur.

so it is very probable that what the world is going to do is what the united states has done and that is that it will tip over and there will be ever less and less oil. harder and harder to get, and more and more expensive. the next chart, kind of puts this in a global perspective. this is a chart which shows what the size of the countries of the world would look like if their size was relative to the amount of oil reserves that they have. and you notice here that saudi arabia dominates the world. that's because saudi arabia may, we aren't really sure because they won't open their books, saudi arabia may have 22% of all

the reserves in the world. you may remember six weeks or a couple months ago there was a wiki leaks expose that said that maybe the saudis had overestimated their oil reserves by as much as 40%. so map might not look quite like this but relatively. why would they overestimate their reserves? when opec could produce more oil than they were producing, and they were all anxious for more revenues, opec decided that they would limit their production so as to keep the price of oil up. and so they permitted each of the countries to pump a percentage of their reserves. so if you look back at the history of this, you will see that without finding any new fields the reserves could go up 50%, sometimes the reserves

doubled. it was kind of a contest amongst liars because the more you said you had, the more you could pump because you could pump a percentage of what your reserves were. so we really aren't sure what these reserves are because they will not open their books. but roughly like this. certainly the largest reserves of oil, all the oil are in saudi arabia. look at those countries around them. iran and iraq and kuwait. little kuwait looks like a province down there in the corner of iraq, and look how much oil they have. the united arab emirates, you can hardly find them on a map. now i want you to look for the countries on the map that have the largest economic activity and that's the united states, we represent a fourth of all the economic ack fifth in the world -- activity in the world. where one person out of 22 and

we have a fourth of all the good things in the world. it's really interesting to ask yourself, how come? what is so different about the united states? that this one person out of 22 has a fourth of all the good things in the world. subject for another time and we will comment and talk about that, but it is an interesting challenge. why? why? look at the united states here. we have only 2% of the reserves of oil in the world. and we use 25% of the oil in the world. now look at europe. it's hard to find them on this map, isn't it? europe collectively is economically a bit bigger than the united states. and they are in worse shape than we are as far as oil reserves. they are almost totally dependent on oil which is shipped in. and now look to find the two

countries that have between them better than 2.5 billion people out of our seven billion people in the world. china and india. see them over here? tiny, tiny. they are very small reserves of oil. last year the chinese bought 13 million cars, we struggle to sell 12 million cars. china is now the world's largest polluter. they just passed us. we are number two in that category. china's economy is growing very rapidly. their demands for oil are increasing rapidly. i do not have the chart here but china is buying up oil all over the world. and i ask the state department, why would china buy oil? we have only 2%. we use 25%. we are not buying oil anywhere. i said why would china buy oil?

you see, you get your oil today by going to the global oil auction and you have the money, it's dollars today, let's hope it stays that, if it turns to yuan orure rows we'll be in--or euros we'll be in a heap of trouble. the state department says to us i'm not sure china understands the marketplace. wow. a country at that time growing 14% i think china understands the marketplace marketplace. i think they understand there is such a thing as peak oil. do they understand that? five years ago i led a could he dell -- codel to china this holiday season. i was in shanghai on new year's eve. nine of us went to talk about energy. china began their discussion of energy by talking about post oil. of course it would be a post oil world. it's not today. we are not running out of oil for those who say we are running out of oil. that's thot what we are running out of.

there is a lot of oil left. there is more oil left than all the oil we have used in oil world's history up to now. what we are running out of is our ability to produce that oil at increasing rate to meet increasing demands. we are not letting up. there will be oil for another 150 years. ever less and less, more and more expensive, harder and harder to get. our time is running out. we have only one chart to look at this would be the chart. this is when we discovered oil. way back there. huge amounts of oil. this dark heavy line here is our condummings -- our consumption of oil. you need to thank the arabs or arab oil embargo. if they hadn't had that in the 1970's, look where this curve would be. we have gone off the top of the chart. that woke us up. your air condition now probably three times as efficient as your air conditioner was then. we will return to talk about what can we do about this.

today we talked only about the problem. it's a huge problem. we are equal to that problem. we'll be back and talk about how we respond to the problem. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: i thank the gentleman. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert from texas, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. we are in a time of massive overspending. a time when someone to raise taxes, creating more of an

economic problem. but it's been shocking that after the biggest wave election since the 1930's, 80-plus brand new republican conservative members coming into this house, it's been nearly a year and we really haven't cut much of anything. there's plenty of places to do it. it should be done. it can be done. we ought to just say we are going back to the last speaker pelosi budget before the big bailouts and stimulus all started occurring. i don't remember governmental entities around the country, federal governmental entities in 2007 and 2008, with speaker pelosi at the helm of things, complaining that they weren't

getting enough federal money. yet if we went back there, just said, you know what, forget the stimuluses and the bailouts, obviously those haven't worked. less' just go back to the 2007 or -- let's just go back to the 2007 or 2008 budget. they didn't pass a budget they passed appropriations, but let's go back to those numbers. . what we've had is a president of the united states coming into office, jumping up the federal spending by $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion and then saying, we're not cutting any of that extra $1 trillion we've added on, we just need now to raise taxes to get up to all this giveaway spending that we've done. there are many good examples of that. but none better than in the solar energy area. a place like solyndra getting

$25 million and $600 million that's been completely, completely wasted. we've been told by secretary napolitano that the country just can't afford to build a fence on our southern border where our problems now are not latin american citizens coming up here, we have what are sometimes labeled o.t.m.'s, other than mexicans, coming in and many of them are coming in and they're not coming in to do us any favors and they're not coming here to get jobs. we have an obligation for provide for the common defense. our oath requires us to do that. and we're not doing it. but, good grief, if you took the money that this administration squandered, giving away to solyndra, take the $700 billion

or so that was squandered, given away to a solar plant in nevada, actually they had about $35 billion to give away, they literally have been doing, and according to the information from this administration, if you -- some of us think it shouldn't cost nearly this much, but if you took just $1 billion to $2 billion of that $35 billion that have been squandered by this energy department and said, we're committed to providing for the common defense, and in providing for the common defense we're going to build defense, it would cost a fraction of what this administration has squandered on solar energy giveaway programs. what a waste.

then we have obamacare. you want to save $1 trillion, just stop it, repeal obamacare. the vast majority of american people sent a new majority into the house to try to get that done. turns out we got to have help in the senate we don't have down there. so that we can do the will of the majority of the american public and repeal obamacare. there's a trillion dollars in savings, actually more than that. we got $105 billion being spent right now in the process of being spent -- right now, in the process of being spent, to make sure that the mechanisms are in place so that by 2013, 2014, obamacare is going to be the law of the land, whether the supreme court strikes it down or not because all these mechanisms will be in place. it's time to repeal it. it's time to get rid of it and have serious health care reform. and you can't have serious

health care reform until you know what the cost of health care is. you can't go into any doctor's office or any hospital, any health care provider office and say, how much does it cost for this procedure, that procedure, if it is something that's covered by insurance or medicare or medicaid. because they can't tell you. it depends, they'll tell you. what kind of insurance you got? are you on medicare, medicaid? are you paying cash? ironically in a society where paying cash should normally get you the lesser price, in health care, because of some of the insurance agreements, they are not allowed contractly to charge as little to the cash-paying people as those who have insurance get charged to their insurance companies. that's not free market.

that's not competition. so that's something that has to be dealt with. we need transparency there. and when we look at the figures on health care, for example, in medicare, for the calendar year of 2010, it's been estimated that $522.8 billion was spent on medicare. when you divide the number of households in the united states that have been estimated to have one or more people on medicare, you find out we're apparently spending between $20,000 and $30,000 a household for medicare . you can buy some really great

private health insurance, especially if you have a high deductible, for a lot less than $20,000 a year. and that's why the proposal i had, some call it bipartisan, it's clearly become a partisan entity. after being called to the woodshed by this current president, they were able to strike about $200 billion or $300 billion from their estimated cost of obamacare, only to find once it passed that got put back in. well, if c.b.o. has a margin of error of $300 billion out of every $1 trillion they estimate, then probably it's not something we ought to keep. kind of like the energy department. when they're that bad at what they do, it's time to get rid of them and do something new.

but you can't placement folks that are there -- blame the folks that are there, their hands are tied with rules that were put in place by 1974 until the last five or six years, the most liberal congress in our history, same one that said we weren't going to stay with our commitments to allies in southeast asia. we left, some estimate, two million people to be killed when we fled southeast asia. and now this president seems to be following the same trends that we saw with president jimmy carter, turning on our allies, hurting our friends, helping our enemies and there's always a price to be paid for that. so we got obamacare put in place . over $1 trillion could be saved, just repeal the thing, and let's

start with a real reform. and it certainly appears, even though c.b.o. refused to score it, newt gingrich had told me if i could get that bill scored it might revolutionize the discussion on health care, so naturally c.b.o. wouldn't score something like that. even after they were requested by the ranking republican on energy and commerce, the committee of jurisdiction, and the ranking republican on the joint tax commission, they both requested it be scored. they didn't core is it -- score it. it might have interfered with obamacare being passed. and the bottom line was, it would have given seniors a choice. you want to keep being on medicare and having the federal government tell you what you can or can't have and having to go out and when the precious few dollars you have from social

security have to pay aarp or somebody else's medigap insurance, wrap around insurance, supplemental insurance, do you want to have to keep paying precious dollars or would you like the alternative of having the federal government buy you basically the best private insurance you could have with a high deductible, $3,500, $5,000, whatever we want to say, whatever ends up being most cost effective, and we will give you cash and a health savings account, you control with your own debit card, you make the decisions, the only restriction is it has to be for health care, you can't use that money for anything else? and you get the choice. let them decide if they want to stop buying medigap insurance. i know, as wonderful as aarp is, that it would cut, i think two

years ago they cleared over $400 million in clear profit from their supplemental medicare insurance. so, you know, you hate to cut in on a charitable institution like aarp's massive profits like that, off people that can't afford to buy the product, but, gee, let's give seniors a choice. but in order -- and then of course we would need to give incentives to young people, put your own money into health care, a health savings account, be your money, but it can only be used for health care, you can't pull it out for something that's not health care, you can gift it to other people's health savings accounts. when you pass away, you have money in there, you can pass that on, have someone inherit that from you into their h.s.a., but once it's committed, it's health savings account money, it has to be spent on health care.

but we've been told if that happens then the vast majority of young people in their 20's and 30's would have so much massive amounts of money built up by the time they'd be eligible for medicare, not only would they not want medicare, they wouldn't need it. they'd have plenty of money to do what they wished. now, that would get us off this road to the dust bin of history because we have bankrupted ourselves on entitlement programs. and at the same time what an incredible deal. you get better health care, you get more control, you put patients back in control, you put patients and doctors back making the decisions and i am a big supporter of health insurance, but the trouble is, for a number of years now, we haven't had health insurance in america, we've had health

management. and i'm very concerned that unless health insurance companies get back in the business of health insurance instead of health management, then there will be some bill that ends up running them out of business and it of course will be obamacare if it's not repealed. and then it the government controlling things -- it will be the government controlling things. a massive takeover, as i've said before, obamacare, kind of like the cap and trade bill, they're all about the same thing. it's all about the g.r.e. the government running everything. it's what it's about. we could save money, return freedom to people who have not had it in the area of health care, they would control their destiny. but there are some people here in washington that genuinely, honestly believe they need to be making the personal decisions for people across america

because, gee, they're smarter. they would make better personal decisions for people that haven't done so well on their own. things like that cause the -- thinking like that caused the original revolution. they didn't want some king who thought he knew more about what they should do with their lives making the decisions about their personal lives. and some have drawn the parallel that there is a correlation between the american revolution and the french revolution when compared to the tea party movement and the occupy wall street movements. because the american revolution was about one thing. it was about liberty. and there were people who signed and pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor and they were all at stake and many who signed pledging their lives,

their fortunes, their sacred honor, lost their lives and their fortunes. but their sacred honor was in tact when they died. the declaration of independence said we're endowed by our creator with certain rights and among those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. nobody's guaranteed happiness. but the founders knew that we were endowed by our creator with these rights. but like any endowment, any inheritance that's passed on from a loving father, if you're not willing to fight for it to the death if necessary you will not keep your inheritance. if you make stupid decisions with your endowment, with your inheritance, you're going to

lose it. you won't keep it. many countries have suspected they were endowed by their creator with anunilyenble rights but they didn't fight -- inalienable rights but they didn't fight to preserve them, they never fought to grasp them to begin with and they've never had them. some have had them and squandered them. we have been given such a gift by a creator and by those who are willing to defend our inheritance so that we could enjoy that incredible endowment. we find out there are some people in the occupy movement who have big trust funds, massive amounts of money to keep them going, and they're out there complaining about people with money, got their laptops, or their ipads, don't appear to be hurting too much, it appears some of them were

born on third base and have gone through life thinking they hit a triple. well, they haven't. and they need to be grateful for the people that got them to third base, but they're not. we can get spending under control, but we've got to get back to a moral nation as the founders said, this government was never intended to work as a government for immoral people. for people who did not grasp and understand the gift from their creator. and that they had a creator. we know that there are those who in this country are atheists, because they have the freedom to do that. and that's fine. they have the free come of -- freedom of religion. but the late bob murphy, from

nacogdoches, texas, used to say, you know, i feel sorry for atheists. he said, i do. i feel sorry for atheists because they have to tell the world, while they're trying to act like intellectuals, they have to tell the world that they believe the equation nobody plus nothing equals everything. as bob used to say, how embarrassing, to act like an intellectual and assay, i believe the equation nobody plus nothing equals everything. because the truth is, we were endowed by our creator. it didn't just happen. these incredible gifts didn't just appear. we're endowed by a loving creator. i learned a lot about the nature of god as a father who loved his children, i learned even more about the niche of god as a judge and chief

justice. how you don't want to punish people, you've got -- you got a taste of that as a father, but there have to be laws, there has to be enforcement, there has to be equal enforcement, and people not be above the law. well, when you get people in positions of authority, who think they are above the law, that they should be in a position as was king george iii to decide legislative, judicial, and executive decisions, we're in trouble. in north dakota, there has been the largest oil find since the discoveries in alaska. some think the shale finds of oil in north dakota may even exceed prudhoe bay.

it's big. we -- those of us who believe in god should be thanking god for the endowment of all the natural resources in this country. we have been richly blessed and yet we've got an administration that says, hands off. this might make us energy independent, this might move us down the road to stop sending money to countries that hate us, to stop sending money to countries who are funneling money to terrorism, this energy resource blessing that we've been given, if we use it, would create jobs, but we're not going to allow it because we want to use something they call alternative energy. the reason as someone recently said, it's called alternative

energy is because it isn't real energy. you use more energy getting the energy out than you actually get back. that's been seen with wind energy. and we know that these massive windmills, though producing some small amount of electricity, they've chopped up a lot of birds in the process. and yet what has been this administration's position in response to the biggest oil find in modern history in north dakota? slauson exploration company of wichita, kansas, was charged under the migratory bird treaty act for killing 12 birds, these aren't endangered species, they're migratory birds. like mallard ducks. after landing allege -- after

allegedly landing in oil waste pits in western north dakota. so our justice department which abandoned prosecution of funding of terrorism around the world against the united states and our friend israel, it has abandoned that responsibility. they're purging their training records of any reference to radical islam, they're refusing to go after the people that want to bring down this country, they're appointing people on homeland security adrisery council who have glowingly talked about itoe la khomeini or the holy land foundation that funneled money to terrorism, they're putting people like that on the homeland security advisory council, giving them secret clearance, and letting them peruse our classified documents. that's what this administration has been doing.

but, these energy resources could make us energy independent and what are they doing? they're putting their foot on the throat of anybody that tries to produce them to the point that they willig forethe tens of thousands of birds that have been killed by windmills and go after the biggest oil find in modern history in america and charge them criminally because maybe there were 12 ducks that got into some their oil. -- into some of their oil. it's incredible what this administration is doing, they think to help america, but clearly, just as clearly in retrospect as president carter hurt this country, hurt those who love liberty, by recognizing the itoe la khomeini is a man -- as a man

of -- the itoe la khomeini as a -- the ayea toe la khomeini -- the ayatollah khomeini as a man of peace and thousands and thousands of people died because such a man was encouraged to come to power, just like this administration did in egypt, like this administration has done in libya, without really knowing who we were helping and now the muslim brotherhood that is devout in pursuing an international caliphate that would -- would put the lovers of liberty in this country, the shackles of following sharia law. it's a disgrace. there is so much damage that

this administration has been doing, the justice department going after people because they believe there is a god, i'll just close with what ben franklin said in the constitutional convention, 1787, the end of june, he said, how has it happened that we have not once thought of humbly applying to the father of lights to illuminate our understanding, in the gipping contest with great britain, when we were conscious of the danger of britain, we had daily prayer in this room. he ultimately said if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it possible that an empire could rise without his aid? we have been assured, sir, in the sacred writing, that unless

they labor with the love, they loy boar in vain, franklin said. he said we shall succeed in our political building no better than the buildings of babel. he was right. we had over 200 years of blessings as a result. it's time to acknowledge the result, the result of our blessing and the source of our blessings. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: i move that we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until noon on monday

>> good morning, everyone. any job creation is welcome news. but the jobless rate in our country is still unacceptably high. today mashes the 34th consecutive month of unemployment above 8%. as you may remember, the obama administration promised that unemployment would not exceed 8% if we passed the stimulus bill. that promise has gone unfulfilled. more than 300,000 americans left the labor force last month, that means they stopped looking for work. i think we should all be concerned about that. the house has passed a series of bill december sined to

remove government barriers to private sector job creation. there are now 25 bipartisan bills that have passed the house and are waiting in the united states senate. it's all part of our plan to help america's job creators. it's been our focus all year. we have a plan. and frankly, if the united states senate would take up these bipartisan bills, they'd find that there would be bipartisan support in the united states senate as well. president obama should use this opportunity to call on the senate to move these bills as passed by the house. the american people want action on jobs. and they want it now. >> good morning. today's unemployment numbers certainly look good on the surface when the rate of unemployment comes down, that's always good news. however if you look at the number of new jobs created, there's just not enough new jobs being created in america. and we need to work harder toward that end to be able to

provide people with a better opportunity. i know americans are looking for optimism around the holidays. we continue to try to stay focused on areas in which we can find common ground. we've looked at where we've been this session and we have been able to find some common ground with the president when it came to the trade bills, when it came to the 3% withholding bill. there is an ability for us to set aside some differences and to find some common ground. we look as house republicans to continue to try to find those ways. there are plenty of areas in which we disagree. we don't believe we ought to start there. we ought to set aside this. we don't believe in higher taxes or more spending. but we do want to work with this president in terms of finding common ground and seeing how we can create jobs. so if we can't see our way clear on those bigger issues, let's look toward how we can make incremental progress, day by day, to help the lives of americans and create more jobs for families across the

country. >> although improve prd last month, november still marks the 34th month where unemployment has been 8% or above. and as the speaker has alluded, although encouraging, when you realize 300,000 perhaps have just given up, it's even less encouraging. so again, 34 months of 8% unemployment or more in the obama economy, 28 of the last 30 months we've had 9% plus unemployment in the obama economy. 13.5 million remain unemployed in the obama economy. small business startups, entrepreneurship remains at a 17-year low in the obama economy. meanwhile, house republicans

have passed three more jobs bills. we now have 23 of them stacked up like cordwood at the united states senate awaiting action in the democratic senate. as our leader said, we will continue to try to work with the president and with senator reid and the democrats as we did on the free trade agreements, on 3% withholding on the american veterans' act. but it is time for the president to admit, after being able to enact all the major tenets of his agenda, be it his health care plan, be it dodd-frank, be it the stimulus, that ultimately his policies are not working. so we would ask, mr. president, please tell senator reid to pass our jobs bills. >> the question isn't really where are we today? the question is, where should we be? remember, the obama administration promised the american public that if the

stimulus bill passed, that right now, we would be under 6.5% unemployment. instead, we're over 8.5% unemployment. so think about the remedies. think about the opportunity moving forward. as has been previously mentioned, over 20 bills are pending, jobs bills that are pending in the united states senate and just imagine what things could be like if those were called up, passed, and signed into law. our economy would be game on, we would be rolling forward, we wouldn't be having a conversation stumbling around unemployment in the mid 8's. >> what is the house republican plan for paying for an extension of the payroll tax cut and an extension of the unemployment benefit? >> we're going to have that conversation with our members as soon as we leave here and we'll know more about it soon. >> the message democrats are

putting forth is that republicans are anti-middle class tax cuts, and that republicans are only protecting the wealthy. a lot of people are saying they're winning that messaging more. how do you respond to that? >> i've got 11 brothers and sisters on every rung of the economic ladder my dad owned a bar. i know what's going on out in america. and the fact is that the republicans are trying to do everything we can to allow american families and small businesses to keep more of what they earn, this to try to keep the government off the backs of employers so they can begin to hire people. the other side can come out with all the rhetoric they want to come out with, but the facts are the facts. >> mr. speaker, does the action of the senate last night on both the democratic and republican proposal on the payroll bill particularly the very sound defeat of the republicans by mass defection on their side, does that make

your job harder, different, what's the future? >> who knows. >> but, i mean, seriously, this is an issue that -- this is one of the key issues in the next three weeks, you said you're going to talk to your conference, but give us some -- >> we're going to talk to the conference in a few minutes, i'm sure you'll have all kinds of answers to your questions. >> the senate focused on republican alternative, do you expect to see that kind of resistance and division among your republicans, the idea of extending the payroll tax? >> i think not. >> house democratic leader nancy pelosi says congress cannot go home for christmas without passing unemployment insurance and payroll tax cut extensions. in a press conference today on capitol hill, leader pelosi and minority whip steny hoyer said jobs and middle class purchasing power are crucial to boosting the economy this holiday season.

>> thank you for joining us, mr. clyburn had to leave to catch a plane. but we have a letter to speaker boehner asking him to extend unemployment insurance, extend the tax cut for the middle class an extend s.g.r. these are three very important issues that economists tell us that are -- build the economy, in terms of unemployment insurance, payroll tax, inject them into the economy to create jobs. last night, the republicans in the senate rejected the republican proposal, the majority of republicans voted against the republican proposal in the senate. these are important, important initiatives, economists, independent economists tell us that 400,000 jobs would be lost if we don't pass what the

president suggests in the expanded extension of u.i. and the payroll tax. and other initiatives. but these two are very important because they expire on january -- on january 1, december 31. we can't leave here without passing. we have to stop toying with the american people and their economic security. we really do. it is a job we know that we have to do. it's time for us to sit down and do this in a bipartisan way, as we did when president bush was president. christmas is coming, families are concerned. the deadline of december 31 is fast upon us. again, last month, we sent a letter, last night, the republican -- to the republican -- the republicans in the senate rejected their own plan. there has to be a better way to get the job done. christmas is coming, the goose

is getting fat. and the republicans refuse, they want to keep in doubt whether the middle class will have a tax cut. hold that hostage to protecting tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country. it's just not right. i want to yield now to our distinguished bhip. mr. hoyer: thank you very much, madam leader. coal in the stocking ought not to be what we leave for the american people at the end of this year. we're going to have some three million people who are going to be without the ability to support thems an their families if we don't pass the unemployment insurance, and do it in the next few days. an awful lot of people are going to -- working men and women, average salaried people, are going to find their salaries, their take-home pay reduced if we do not extend and

follow the president's recommendation for both individuals and small businesses. so i'm hopeful that unlike what happened in the senate where a majority of the united states senate voted to extend the payroll tax, republicans offered a -- an alternative and as the leader has pointed out, couldn't get a majority of their own party to support their recommendation. but at least it did recognize that we ought to extend the payroll tax. so i am very hopeful that the republican leadership both in the house and the senate, will work with us to ensure that coal is not the gift from the united states congress in the stockings of the american people. that we pass an extension of the tax cut and indeed expand that tax cut, which economists, as leaders pointed out -- as the leader has pointed out,

will have a substantially positive effect on jobs and deprow the economy and pass the unemployment insurance as well so we do not have millions of people, millions of our fellow citizens, without the ability to put food on their table. in the coming year. thank you. >> it's porn to note that although a majority voted in the senate for extending the payroll tax cut, you still need 60 votes in the senate and that majority did not make a successful passage of their -- of the process to move the legislation along. then when they had their own plan, as was said, a majority of the republicans voted against their own plan. what is it that the middle class did for the republicans -- to the republicans that they are taking it out on them so harshly and not passing this payroll tax and saying, we're not -- we're protecting the tax cut for the wealthy but we're not protecting -- extending the

tax cut for the middle class. >> the republicans said they want to change the -- change the way to the keystone pipeline auction and a package to extend payroll tax cut. what is is your reaction to that? >> this is evasive. taking a circuitous route to nowhere. the fact is we know what we have to do. if we have to pay for the payroll tax cut, we're perfectly willing to do that even though the republicans never want to pay for the tax cut for the wealthiest people in our country. doesn't that strike you as something? for the middle income tax cut it has to be paid for. tax cuts for the wealthy, we don't pay for that. but in any event, we're willing to be fiscaly sound in terms of saying we want to extend this. we have confidence it will create jobs and bring revenue to the treasury. and we can pay for the payroll tax cut and we can pay for the

extension of s.g.r., which is very important to american seniors, by doing what the republicans did in their budget, by taking the funds from the overseas contingency operations account. >> do you have enough leverage to have the tax on incomes over a million being part of the package? >> time is of the essence. mr. hoyer may have -- >> leverage is not the issue, votes is the issue. your question is, do we have the votes? you saw in the united states senate a majority of the members of the senate, unfortunately, the senate requires a supermajority to do anything. to put a bill on the floor requires 60 votes. the american public doesn't understand that. i don't understand it, frankly. i think it's a dysfunctional body that has a majority of the representatives, as a matter of fact, well over a majority of the american public voting for the passage of that bill and still doesn't pass, not

withstanding the fact you get to 51. so we're going to continue to advocate on behalf of the working americans to get this -- make sure their tax cut, and it was effected last year is extended and expand sod we can continue to grow the economy, grow jobs, and create those 400,000 jobs that the mists believe will result. >> talk about the potential for using money? >> it's something republicans have used in their budgeting, i think if there's anything important it is the economic security of america's families and we could use it for extending the payroll tax and removing all the uncertainty in s.g.r. s.g.r. is initials for something that means that seniors will be able to see the doctor of their choice under medicare. it's very important to our seniors. and it is a priority and this

money, this account, has over $1 trillion in it, wouldn't take half of it to cover what we're talking about. >> and mr. hoyer, you feel like yesterday's senate vote was only a message about the millionaire's tax, did not say that the senate doesn't have an appetite to extend the payroll tax rather than hold it static at 4.2? you think the senate has an appetite to expand it? >> i don't know the answer to that question if you're talking about 60, but i think the majority of the united states senate indicated they had an appetite. whether we have 60 or not, i don't know. but what the president has said is we've got an economy that is struggling, although we had some good news today. unemployment rate went from nine to 8.6. we added 140,000 private sector jobs, unfortunately we continue to lose public sector jobs, so we had a net 100,000

appreciation of jobs but the answer to your question is, economists tell us if we do what the president suggests, expand the economy, and grow jobs. that's what the american people want us to do. >> this morning, there seemed to be a lot of disarray in the republican conference about whether or not to support the payroll tax extension. they say anything that is going to extend it needs democratic support in the house. do you feel you have the leverage, and are you willing to negotiate anything in term os spending cuts you would be opposed to? >> let me say, i'm not an expert on disarray on the republican caucus. but i do know that the democrats put the heat on, on passing the payroll tax cut and that disarray may be a result of them feeling the heat. the american people know that this is about fairness, it's urgent for us to pass this, and again, jobs are at stake and the purchasing power of our

middle class during this holiday season, which is important to our economy, depends on this. the -- we're always willing to talk about some offsets when it comes to this, but this is the perfect place to go because with the winding down of the war in iraq and afghanistan, too, there are resources, they will be used for something and we're saying they should be used as a priority to give a tax cut to the middle class and other issues that are of concern to the middle class. but we're always but we're always open to hear what they have to say. so far, we have not heard anything that even sounds like a serious attempt at a bipartisan compromise. >> what do you say to that? >> talk is cheap. when president bush said the country was in trouble, democrats responded in a bipartisan way. when the republicans could not

keep government running without our help, they got our help. the second time they could not keep government running without our help, we gave them help. they could not make sure that america paid its debts, paid its bills. democrats helped. the answer to your question is -- yes, democrats have shown, not just talk about it -- have shown that we are prepared, when republicans could not pass their own initiatives -- the republican appropriation bill that came out of their committee with the support of their chairman of the appropriations committee. 101 of the folks -- they only got 131. you need to hundred 18. they have more than 218. when, historically, finally, when speaker pelosi was putting forward legislation needed by the american people, too often, we got zero support. the answer to your question is an emphatic yes. we are prepared to cooperate on behalf of the welfare of our

country and our people. >> thank you all very much. we cannot go home unless we pass this legislation. the clock is ticking. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> at an earlier event in washington, president obama also reacted to today's jobs numbers at an event to promote energy- efficient buildings. he also called on congress to renew the payroll tax cuts, but first, we will hear from former president clinton speaking on the energy initiative. this is about 15 minutes.

>> well, i never got to open for the rolling stones, so i will try to do my best for the president. thank you all for being here. i want to thank all the people involved for their commitment to energy efficiency and all the people they put to work. mr. president, i want to thank you and the secretary and your whole team. thank you for joining together today for what you are doing.

when the president asked me to work with his jobs council on improving energy efficiency in buildings, i think he did it because the clinton-bogle initiative and mild climate change project had been working on these kinds of things for several years now and i believe as strongly as i can say that this is good business, creates jobs, makes us more in independent and helps fight climate change. it is the nearest thing we have got to a free lunch in a tough economy. all of the savings can be paid back within a reasonable amount of time and all the cost of construction can be paid through utility bills. we're working on that and the president has an announcement to make about that today. i just want to say how grateful i am for the work that the

labor has done in putting up some of the pension funds from california and some other funds they have to actually invest their own money, gambling that they can get a reasonable return in putting people to work. i appreciate the support that tom has given to this. there are a lot of construction firms that will lose really skilled, gifted workers if they cannot find something to do. the best opportunity to preserve and rebuild this sector is through greater energy efficiency. i want to thank all the people who have been involved in this. mr. president, i just want to say how grateful i am for the meeting we just attended. the president's jobs council and economic team put together a

meeting we were just that. there were nearly 50 people there. he will tell you what they said they would do, but i hate to sound like a broken record -- we could create an almost unlimited number of jobs out of this, even in this lousy economy, even with all this imbedded mortgage crisis, it we can work out financing. i am grateful to be able to support this, to offer the continued effort of our climate change project and the clinton global initiative, to help the partners we have that are involved in this and anybody else who wants it. but i am especially grateful that the president did not let this fall through the cracks. i have not been in that job for a long time, and i am getting older, but i have some memory left. 1000 people ask you to do 1000 things. one of the test of whether things worked out or not, since

you cannot do all 1000, is whether you can set up a process to do things and follow-up. i am full of gratitude and praise for you and your whole team, not just for your commitment to clean energy, but for your commitment to energy efficiency, which on buildings like this, averages 7000 jobs for every billion dollars invested, by far the biggest bang for the bulk of any available investment by no. thank you, tom. thank you, rikki and randy. mr. president, thanks for giving me the chance to work on this. -- the biggest bang for the buck of any available investment i know. >> good morning, everybody. i want to first thank randy and, for their participation. i am thrilled that president clinton has been willing to take

this on. as he pointed out, partly thanks to me, he is home alone too often. this has been a passion of his for quite some time. i am very grateful for his involvement. i thank all the folks who are participating here for giving us this remarkable for -- tour. there are the equivalent of 250 full-time workers as a consequence of the project that is taking place here. it is a win for the business owner. it is a win for the tenants of the building. it is a win for the construction workers who are participating and for the property manager that is doing such a great job. this is a great example of what is possible. as president, my most pressing challenge is doing everything i can every single day to get this economy growing faster and to create more jobs.

this morning, we learned that our economy added another 140,000 private-sector jobs. the unemployment rate went down. despite some strong headwinds this year, the american economy has not created in the private sector jobs for the past 21 months in a row. that is nearly 3 million new jobs in all and more than 500,000 over the last four months. we need to keep that growth going. right now, that means congress needs to extend the payroll tax cuts for working americans for another year. congress needs to be no unemployment insurance for americans who are still out there pounding the pavement looking for work -- congress needs to renew the unemployment insurance. failure to take either of these steps would be a significant blow to our economy. i to take money out of the pockets of americans who are most likely to spend it and

would harm small businesses that are dependent on the spending. it would be a bad idea. i noticed that some folks on the other side have been telling president clinton it is a bad idea to raise taxes. during tough economic times. that is precisely why i sought to extend the payroll tax this year and next year. it does mean that we lock in tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. i do not think president clinton has been on board for that for perpetuity, but just thought that might be worth mentioning. that is why it is so disappointing, last night, by the way, that senate republicans voted to block those payroll tax cuts. that effectively would raise taxes on nearly 160 million hard-working americans. because they did not want to ask

a few hundred thousand of the wealthiest americans to pay their fair share and get the economy growing faster than ever, and i think that is unacceptable. we are going to keep pushing congress to make this happen. now is not the time to slam the brakes on the recovery. right now, it is time to step on the gas. we need to get this done. i expect it is going to get done before congress leaves. otherwise congress may not be leaving and we can all spend christmas here together. our longer-term challenge is rebuilding an economy where hard work is valued and responsibility is rewarded and the middle class and folks who are trying to get into the middle class regain some security. an economy that is built to compete with the rest of the world and an economy that is built to last. that is why we are here today in a place where clearly there is some building going on. president clinton, leaders of

business, leaders of labor -- we are all here to announce some new steps that will create new jobs rebuilding america. this building is in the middle of the retrofitting project to make it more energy-efficient. already, this retrofit is saving this building $200,000 a year on its energy bills. as i mentioned earlier, by the time it is finished, it will have created more than 250 full- time jobs in construction here in this building. consider president clinton's coming down from new york. the fact that the owners of the empire state building did the same thing. they are retrofitting that iconic landmark from top to bottom. it is a big investment, but it will pay for itself by saving them for $0.4 million a year in energy costs. it is estimated that all the retrofitting they are doing will pay for itself in about four and

a half years. -- it will pay for itself by saving them for $0.4 million -- $4.4 million. it is a trifecta. which is why you have labor and business behind it. it could save our business is up to $40 billion a year on their energy bills. money better spent growing and hiring new workers. it would boost manufacturing of energy-efficient materials. when millions of construction workers have found themselves out of work since the housing bobble burst, it will put them back to work doing the work that america needs done. this is an idea whose time has come. that is why in february, i announced the better buildings initiative, an ambitious plan to improve the energy efficiency of america's commercial buildings

20% by the year 2020, and i asked president clinton and my jobs counsel to challenge the private sector as part of the initiative to step up, make these cost-saving investments and prove that it works so that other companies follow their lead. i believe that if you are willing to put people to work making your buildings more efficient, america should provide you some incentives to do so. that is something that would require congressional action. we have asked congress to work with us to move on providing more effective incentives for commercial building owners all across the country to move forward on these energy efficient steps, but we cannot wait for congress to act. if they will not act, i will, which is why today, i am directing all federal agencies -- all federal agencies -- to make at least $2 billion worth of energy efficiency upgrades

over the next two years. none of these upgrades will require taxpayer money to get them going. we are going to use performance- based contracts that use savings on energy and utility bills to pay the contractors to do the work, and it should keep construction workers pretty busy. in fact, this is something that the chamber of commerce has said is critical to private sector job creation. the private sector and community leaders are also stepping up to the plate alongside the federal government. president clinton and the clinton global initiative have been tremendous partners in rallying them. in june, we announced initial commitments of $500 million to upgrade 300 million square feet of building space. some of these projects are already under way. the good news is today, we can announce that we are going even bigger. you can see larger commitments. we now have 60 major companies,

universities, labor unions, hospitals, cities, and states, and they are stepping up with nearly $2 billion in financing to upgrade an additional 1.6 billion square feet of commercial industrial space by our target year of 2020. that is more than 500 empire state buildings. i just had the chance, along with president clinton, to meet with representatives of these institutions that are involved and hear firsthand how they can put americans back to work but also improve their bottom lines. you have companies like best buy and walgreen's that are going to upgrade stores lighting, which will save them money. manufacturers like alcoa that will make their manufacturing plants more efficient, dramatically reducing their operating costs, which means they can compete more effectively all around the world. you have property management companies that are upgrading their buildings to make real

estate portfolios more attractive to businesses. our military families will get lower utility bills and higher quality of life and all of this will create jobs. over the past decade, we have seen what happens if we do not make investments like these. we have seen what happens when we do not come together for a common purpose. wages flat line. incomes fall. employment stalls. we lose our competitive edge. we have also seen what happens when we do what is right. when bill clinton was president, we did not shortchange investors. we did not say we would cut back on the things that we know would help us grow in the future. we did not make decisions that put the burden on the middle- class or the port -- poor. we invested in our future and

ask everybody to pay their fair share. private-sector thrived. jobs were created. the middle class grew as income group. millions rose out of poverty. we ran a surplus. we were actually on track to be able to pay off all of our debt. we were firing on all cylinders. we can be the nation again. that is our goal. we will be that nation again. but we are going to have to fight for it. there is work to be done. there are workers like these guys who are ready to do it. there are businesses who are ready to step up. we just have to get organized, get mobilized, and move. i want to thank everybody who is participating here for stepping up to the plate and showing extraordinary leadership. i am confident that this is going to be one important piece of the puzzle to get the economy moving again. thank you very much everybody. >> president clinton, any advice

for president obama about the economy? >> he gives me advice all the time. >> i will say again -- this announcement today -- the reason you should be encouraged by this -- you can run the numbers. this meeting we just came from represented trillions of dollars in potential investment. and if the president, by doing this, can trigger investment so that you have more buildings like this -- keep in mind, it can also change what goes on in every rural place and small town in america. every little county has one bonded contractor. that bonded contractor can guarantee to every public school, every state, county, and local building, every little office building what the savings

are going to be. they have the software. we have to have breakthroughs on financing. that is really the long-term potential significance of what the president announced today and the fact that he did something that only a president can do. he got all these people together and then, to have the afl-cio and afc and others lead the way saying they will put their members' pensions into this because they can get a good, stable return and put current members to work and other peoples of return -- and other people to work -- this is a good deal. the announcement the president made today is the jobs that you can multiplies 7000 times 8 billion. literally 50, 70, 80 times that because of his involvement. thank you.

>> that event earlier today in washington. as president obama manchin, the senate rejected yesterday a tense and extending the payroll tax cut. neither democrats nor republicans could get enough votes to pass their proposals, due to the way the tax cuts were paid for. to learn more, "washington journal" this morning talked

with a tax policy reporter. this is about 40 minutes. bloomberg news, and we asked him to come in this morning to help us understand what happened in the senate last night when both the democrat and republican versions of the payroll tax holiday extensions failed. guest: well, in a typical year employers and employees split the payroll tax, each paying 6.2% of wages toward the payroll tax. the votes last night were out extending a reduction that they had placed in 2011. the democratic bill which expanded upon that reduction and made it lower, made the tax break lower than what it has been in 2011. the republican bill would have just kept the current tax break going into 2012. both measures failed to make, to get the 60 vote special. that would have been necessary for them to advance.

host: we should earlier that 26 republicans voted against their own proposal. so what was happening? guest: that was the interesting part of the vote. what we were hearing and afterwards was that republicans were saying they put this on the table as an alternative but in the end many of them said they couldn't support it. host: and why not? guest: they were concerned about tim packet of social security. host: take a minute for people who dent understand the connection between payroll tax and social security. guest: sure. the social security payroll tax goes to fund social secure di. so when you've reduced it, there's been a concern that you are not paying as much money and so that maybe makes social security at risk later on. of course in 2011, it has been a transfer from the fund into social security to cover any losses from the lower from the

reduced amount of taxes going towards social security and would have considered going forward. but the political debate is whether the social security is at risk. host: we showed a clip from speaker boehner who sounds very concilatory and we showed a story from your competitors who suggest the party is ready to say yes to them. so what's happening as they come towards the end of the year and with the elections blooming? they're beginning to fact look like they might -- guest: the republicans are saying they support the payroll tax cut and support going forward. the big question is how you pay for it. and there hasn't been a lot of agreement yet on how that's going to happen. i think that as we go forward through the weekend and into next week you'll see some discussions between the leaders. between, you might see some engagement from the white house

on this, come from some kind of common ground how to pay for it. but we're not there yet. that's really the issue. the issue isn't whether the payroll tax cut will continue into 2012. it's how it's going to come together in terms of how congress will pay for it. host: at the current level, how much did it cost, in other words, or how much less money went into social security as a result of the current one? guest: the current payroll tax cut which was a 2% reduction from 6.2% to 4.2% cost about $11.7 billion according to the congressional joint committee. host: then if they in fact lower -- guest: it would have expanded it for businesses as well, would have included businesses that would have been about $265 billion. host: now both parties agree and the senate side that there

should be a payroll tax holiday proposal put forward. as we just learned from steven sloan the difference was how they would pay for it. the senate democrats proposed 3.25% surtax on people making a million dollars or more. that was permanent? but are there are income specials for unemployment? guest: the republican proposal included all those, but the vast majority came from reducing the federal work force and freezing the pay for federal workers for another three years. host: what are they trying to do by having a payroll tax holiday

guest: the idea it puts money into someone's pocket and helps stimulate demand in 2012 and hopefully helps create jobs. and things like that. host: do studies show that in fact happened? guest: in 2011 we obviously have unemployment around 9%, so there's a lot of criticism this didn't do enough for the economy so why keep going forward? but we heard from economists like mark vandy is that if you continue the grow at its current pace, g.d.p. would contract maybe by about half a percent. not a question of what will stimulate the economy, according to economists. the question is more whether it would -- whether these kind of measures prevent the economy from going off the tracks even further than it already has.

host: so you can send us a question and also tweet us or send us an email if you would like to make a comment over taxes that continues to debate between the democrats and republicans in congress. let's listen to the two leaders. first harry reid. >> they seem to think that our plan to put $1,500 into the pocket of every american with rare exceptions. gifts, the boost they need to hire employees goes too far. they're willing to fight for ever deeper tax cuts. when it comes to the middle class, republicans here in the senate, not republicans generally, but republicans here in the senate believe the status quo is good enough for struggling families. >> we think struggling american workers should continue to get this temporary relief for another year. there's no reason folks should suffer even more than they

already are from the president's failure to turn this job's crisis around. but there's also no reason we should pay for that relief by raising taxes on the very employers we're counting onto help jolt this economy back to life. we wouldn't be helping anybody by making it less likely that small businesses start hiring people again. host: it sounds a bit like the same debate over the break down between the members of the super committee. guest: yeah, we've seen the same debate over taxes kind of come out on a lot of the past year, whether it's tax cut, or the supercommittee, debt ceiling, things like this. just a different scenario every time. host: we're going to mix in some callers with twitters. let's start with joe, who calls himself american hero. we'll take a call next.

seattle, this is jay who's a republican. good morning, jay. you are on the air as we talk about the tax debate in congress. go ahead please. caller: well my question was, don't they limit the amount of cap, like $125,000 when they stop taking out social security? why don't they just raise that cap so they take it out, say $250,000 instead of a certain -- and the other thing was when they talk about job creators, i'm a conservative. i don't know if i'm a republican, but i'm conservative and i vote republican and i'm retired from the navy. but why don't they -- i forgot what i was going to say. host: that's ok, that happens to us a you will. thanks for your call this morning. guest: the help will be $110,000

in 2012. you haven't heard a lottability moving that cap. but these are things we should keep in mind. host: bill king's comments on twitter is this -- i can't write to hear how -- now in that he's talking about federal workers losing their job under the republican proposal? guest: right. and you heard nancy pelosi talk about that for a moment. host: catch your breath. take a bit of water and we'll get a call from knoxville. linda, democrat. go ahead. caller: i really am a democrat. i'm not a cloaked republican here. and i voted for ralph nader in two of the last presidential elections. but in this case, i am on the side of the republicans. because using the payroll tax for stimulus is terrible precedent.

the first time it's ever been done. you had it a couple of weeks ago who's social security expert. he gave figures on income coming in from social security and going out and this is the first year this social security has ever run an operating deficit. and it's because of the payroll tax cut. i don't understand what the democrats were thinking when they came up with this. the idea is there are things you just don't go there. and the payroll tax has always been a you just don't go there. the same thing as using a debt ceiling as a club is the you just don't go there. the democrats did it and never going to be able to put the demons back in pandora's box and it's clever but blunder of catastrophic proportions. any baby boomer who wants social security should say no to this. host: thanks, linda very much. guest: i think this is actually a very interesting political point. you have seen some on the left

really usher in the validity of this. you saw berny sanders vote against extending the payroll tax cut because of their various issues with social security. host: here is a tweet from james allen. mr. allen writes this, which is economists agree, economy suffers from lack of demand. payroll tax holiday is designed to increase consumer demand. let's go back to telephone calls. the next one here is kevin. republicans from more shal, texas. hey kevin, you're on. caller: thank you, c-span. i'm against extending the payroll tax holiday. i think it was a brilliant move by the president and the democrats. i mean, a tax cut to republicans is like a bone to a dog. if you can throw one out there they'll chase it every time. but the problem is redistribution, this is exactly

what this is. when we have half the country not paying any income tax, some of them do peyton manning roll tax. but if you're going to get rid of that too, you get into a form that more people are not paying taxes than people that are paying taxes. and then every other situation like that in a democracy, the call will always be to raise taxes. i mean why would anyone want to raise taxes if you're not paying taxes. i believe it was huey long who said his campaign focused on don't tax me, don't tax you, tax that fellow behind the tree. host: thank you kevin. commens for him? guest: well, i think that republicans are trying to figure out where to be on this. you'll see that speaker john boehner is going to have a press conference this morning at 9:15. he and other republican leaders,

particularly the house. host: on the other side of the coin, james in southeast, louisiana, picking up from another early caller -- next up is william, an independent. good morning, william, you're on. caller: good morning. i'm also a county commissioner here in jackson county. i guess rather than cutting the payroll taxes i think we need to look to some of the things that are happening. i think whether the world realizes it or not, we're going to pay for the reconstruction of japan after the tsunami because many of our industries that we needed in the auto industry and the other heavy industry in this country they're being imported from there. i think we need to rebuild those industries. take advantage of what's happened there and rebuild those industries in this country.

host: william, can you tell us about being county commissioner? how's the employment there? caller: we've actually had a large tractor company move back to jackson from france. they're going to be bringing on -- host: what brought them back? caller: i think some of the, probably economic climate in europe and also i think the work ethic. i think our work ethic here in rural minnesota is really strong. and i believe that is what lured them back here. host: that must have been good news for the county. how many jobs are coming back? caller: well, over a hundred on the line, but close to a thouse people. host: as county commissioner, you watch aws these debates in washington. the goal, particularly this

debate is economic stimulus. what, as a local official do you think works best to get money back into the economy in a county like the one you serve? caller: well, we currently have a number of wind projects that have come into jackson town. host: are they federally funded? caller: it's all taxpayer money. what the wind company is a windy climate in jackson county so they're putting a lot of wind you are the bins here. that's been a great benefit because we do get a percentage of the electricity produced. it's a very small percentage but it amounts to a lot of dollars. along those lines of energy, it's my understanding that we have built a line to the west coast to export powder river coal which is the highest

quality of coal. i was wondering if c-span could look into that. host: thanks so much for william calling us, county commissioner in jackson county, minnesota. got into a different discussion there. any comments for him? guest: i think the idea of the payroll tax cut is to make sure that you have, is to stimulate the economy in places like where he's represented. host: twitter -- is there a debate? is there a credible, viable debate going on about either moving or increasing the cap? guest: we haven't seen that yet. host: why not? guest: i think there's a question to how much money that would really generate. that the issue has mostly been focused on where the rate should be as opposed to who all is paying.

host: next up is san antonio, mark, republican. good morning to you mark. caller: good morning to y'all. thanks very much. doing a great job. i have a couple of questions. . the first thing is, i was looking at some of the things y'all were talking about in detail here and i'm wondering if there are some foundational things that were missing here regarding some aspects of the original constitution, et cetera, et cetera. and i'm calling as an independent even though i got in on the republican line. recently my grandfather who was a cop for 30 years in virginia recently died and left me in his will. i got to see how a will worked and i came across also something that had that same foundation as similar to our founding fathers in this hebrew's chapter 9, versus 13-17 which talked about a will and testament four times from a fellow that died and these founding fathers saying they left almost some other thing to continue to follow. it seemed like there's no

accountability what's done with these taxes, et cetera, et cetera. you guys seem to have good knowledge on this stuff. i would like to hear your thoughts. host: thanks very much. i think that's on the inheritance tax. guest: the state tax is one of those issues that comes up as part of the bush tax cuts that were extended last year and will be part of the debate at the end of the 2012 and the bush tax cuts are up again. host: here is a comment from a maverick on twitter about the payroll tax cut. writes funny how republicans like the payroll cut as temporary and bush tax cuts they want permanent. what about an expiration of them? is there inconsistency on what should be permanent and what should be temporary? guest: this is part of the debate right now.

i think you've seen democrats kind of complain about this dynamic a little bit. those republicans when they were proposing the bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 wanted them to be permanent. they were put in on a temporary basis because that helped with the budget process. so it's kind of defacto reason that they were made temporary. and you can see republicans like john kyle and the super commit tear always try to offer a plan that would make those tax cuts permanent. host: here's some coverage in this morning's newspaper. we showed you the clip of boehner endorsing it at the beginning of the program. "wall street journal", in their story they write the vote suggests a disconnect who fear the politics of allowing a tax

increase to hit all on january 1 rande many rank and file republicans who say the payroll tax cuts doesn't create jobs and propose. is there a disconnect between the rank and file? guest: it appears there is. i think you have seen some senate, some house and senate leaders kind of indicate on the republican side that republicans stand for lower taxes and so there's some concern about doing anything that would kind of go against that. but you have these conservative members, especially those who are newer, maybe some questioning members who were elected the tea party backing who really insist that this is just bad policy. host: steven sloan there is a question about your organization from one of our viewers is bloomberg news owned by rupert myrrh dom. guest: we are not. host: who owns bloomberg news?

caller: we are an independent company. host: let's show you some opinion pages by the payroll tax debate. first the "wall street journal" case, here's what they write.

host: do you have any comments on that? guest: well, i think the millionaire issue is really interesting because it's kind of developed over the past year. we've seen a number of votes where democrats where harry reid as tried to put democrats on -- excuse me, put republicans on the defensive here. and it seems like maybe that plan is working a little bit more than it has. kind of first launching at the end of last year. host: here's from the other side of the spectrum, "the baltimore sun" a lump of coal. here's some of what they write. it's not simply that republicans would hold the well-being of millionaires over all others but they would do so under the guise that they are looking out for job creators as if the rich were chiefly responsible for growing the economy.

guest: this is the whole crux of the debate right now in the tax policy world about, you know, when you tax the wealthy, whether that is really taxing. millionaires or whether that's taxing small business owners who just happen to report their business income on their personal income tax returns, which in turn kind of kicks them up over that million dollar threshold. and this is absolutely the debate that will go forward. host: next call from pauls valley, oklahoma. hi karen. caller: hi. i know that they are discussing

the budget. how come the republicans want to pay for this tax cut, but they never wanted to pay for the bush tax cuts? because their guys under the bush tax cuts was lower the tax cuts for the wealthy where it stimulates the economy and not only stimulate the economy, but the money would be rolling in to the federal coffers and that hasn't happened. and one more thing. while the republicans warrant us, the people that pay income, that pay income tax, they want us to pay that tax and at the same time, they're telling us that social security is broke. so it's one way or the other. if social security is broke, then they shouldn't be taxing my

-- be taxing me for the social security tax. if i'm not going to get it they want to cut, entitlements and at the same time make you continue to pay for them. host: thank you. guest: it's a very interesting point. republicans say right now that it would justen fiscally irresponsible to continue tax cuts without paying for them. but, you know, you heard people like the democratic leader in the house, nancy pelosi, yesterday say that she doesn't really understand why we didn't have to offset the bush tax cuts when there seems to be such an imperative to offset the extension of the payroll tax. she said that she's open to it. she's happy to consider what she considers reasonable pay for an extension. i think that's the issue. host: brooklyn is our last caller. hello, jackie, independent.

caller: yes. good afternoon. good morning. it looks to me -- how can the republicans continue to try to offset any cuts or benefits in the budget by kicking people out of their jobs? 200,000 more people, government workers -- i don't care whether they're government or private sector workers -- 200,000 people on the unemployment roles. how does that help us in the situation that we currently have at hand? i just don't understand. sure, we can pay for this payroll tax cut, but we have to pay for it another way. not with someone else's job. that's all i have to say this morning. host: thank you, jackie. the controversial proposal. though it's important to note it's similar to a provision that was included in the simpson

report that was a bipartisan deficit lee ducks proposal. host: so to close out here, since we heard speaker boehner is interested in finding a way to move this forward before the end of the year, what's the vehicle for that? what's going happen next after the vote last night? guest: i think the next week will be crucial. we'll see if there could be more message votes, if you will, on different offsets. but i think you've got a number of things kind of tracking to come together toward the end of the year that we should be pay attention to things like the so-called tax extenders, which package of tax breaks that are set to expire at the end of the year. there's a lot of interest in continuing those into 2012. do those all get wrapped up into the same package before everyone heads home for the holidays? host: the senate is not in session today after votes last night. we'll look to next week to see how this might play out. cops a look at our prime-time schedule.

starting - 8 o'clock, it looked at other times of george mcgovern. he ran for the presidency in 1972 and suffered a landslide defeat to richard nixon. i. 7:00, the heads of the fannie mae and freddie mac testified before a subcommittee. all these events tonight on the c-span television networks. a house subcommittee held a hearing earlier today on the disability insurance program. it looked at the income security and provides and its financing challenges. will your testimony from current and former officials from the social security administration. this is about 40 minutes.

>> it has been the source of great debate before and a sense its cash benefits program was signed into law in 1956 by president eisenhower. soon after social security was established, a serious discussion and merged whether to expand the program to workers who became permanently disabled before age 65. while some urged action to establish these benefits, others were concerned about the subjectivity in determining whether a person was truly disabled.

not surprisingly, this debate came to a head in a post world war ii society. if the sole breadwinner was disabled, there were few options. the world in 1956 is a far cry from the world we live in today, where we are connected not just by highways, but by bandwidth. modern medicine has extended our life span well beyond anything conceived by our grandparents. technology has opened up opportunities that are life altering. the global economy has changed, too. like europe, we need foreigners to buy our debt in order to finance our government.

the debt crisis facing europe is forcing many in the european union to make changes to their social benefit programs. greece and other european nations remind us of the price america will have to pay if we delay reform. against this backdrop, the disability debate still rages on. the insurance program -- that meet certain medical criteria as long as they work long enough and paid social security taxes. the continuing growth of the program is striking. at a time when a worker's pay into the system, has increased nearly 70% between 1970 and 2010. the number of people receiving disability benefits increased by almost 300%.

by 2020, the number of beneficiaries will continue to increase. by 18% to 11.8 million. it will reach $188 billion. that is 52% increase over the $124 billion just last year. experts tell us the program's growth is due to the changing work force, including the aging of the baby boomers, changing in disability policy, and a struggling economy. that continued growth is putting a massive strain on social security disability insurance program. according to the 2011 trusties' report, without congressional action, the disability insurance trust fund will be unable to pay full benefits beginning in 2018. that is only six years from now. the path we are on is unsustainable and we are putting individuals with disabilities at risk if we do

not act soon. this subcommittee will lead a much needed conversation about the challenges facing this important program and solutions that can meet the needs of those with disabilities and workers to support the program through taxes on their hard-earned wages. we begin today with an examination of the history of the disability insurance program, and come security provides, and the financing challenges. through future hearings, we will explore the inner workings of the program, including vulnerabilities to fraud, the criteria to determine eligibility, and the appeals process. at a time when washington does not seem to be able to agree on much, i know that all the members of this subcommittee agree on the importance of coming together to insure that

this program stays strong for those who truly cannot work. i thank you again for being here and i recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee on social security. >> thank you very much. nearly every working american is protected against the devastating consequences of premature death, and insufficient retirement savings. they have burned the protection. they paid for it. it is called social security. the benefits, they are basic, nobody gets rich from social security. but they are reliable and they're part of what america's families grew so strong. today, we are beginning a series of hearings focused on the social security disability insurance program. i believe in the program. it is vital, it provides

irreplaceable economic security to those who have paid in but are no longer to work -- no longer are able to work, through no fault as -- of their own. there is always room for improvement and that is the operative word for these hearings, improvement. are we here today as representatives of those american workers to strengthen social security? to reinforce that optimism flowing through our own dna? or are we retreating from the protection, the services and benefits americans pay for. without social security, about half of americans would be living in poverty. this is true for all americans to have become severely disabled and you often have families to care for. workers pay for the benefits over its lifetime, social security has taken and $14.60

trillion. it has only had to pay out to contributing americans $12 trillion. that is a pretty good surplus. it is not easy to qualify for disability benefits. di is using for people love paid into the system. -- is usually for the people who have paid into the system. americans were dying who ordinarily cannot earn a living wage and is disabilities are disabling for a least a year. when considering whether you could work, the social security administration looks at whether you can do any job in the economy, even if it is not in your profession. most people with illnesses and disabilities do not receive di benefits. only the sickest people do.

the benefits are not overly generous. averaging about 13,000 a year. if you simply compare the number of people getting benefits 40 years ago to the number getting benefits today, it seems large. but that is a loaded way of looking at it. a lot has changed in four decades. for starters, women had entered the workforce in large numbers. in 1975, there were 37 million women in the workforce. today, 72 million. baby boomers, we all know about the baby boomers. i am one of them. we're not at the age of eligibility for retirement benefits yet. but more and more, my cohorts is beginning to become disabled or killed. a 50-year-old the day is twice as likely as a 40-year-old to be severely disabled. a 60-year-old is twice as likely to be disabled as the 50-year-

old. in addition, we have had this great recession. some people who held the job in spite of very severe illness or disability have lost those jobs and have not been able to secure employment since. once you take into account these demographic changes, a larger work force, an older population, the rate at which nearly disabled workers began receiving benefits compared to the working population is below what it >> having said this, there needs to be enough people to manage the system. unfortunately, it is operating una budget that this congress cut imprudently. the result is the number of disabled americans awaiting a decision from s.s.a. on their application for earned benefits is, again, on the rise. despite previous years of progress in reducing the backlogs. today more than 1.5 million americans are awaiting a

decision on their application for benefits. some americans have lost their homes, their families and even their lives waiting for the benefits they have earned. an army veteran in maryland became homeless and in dire need of medical care because her hearing was not held. a gentleman in texas had to file for bankruptcy during the six years it took before he received the benefits he had earned. mr. chairman, we have a plot to do, and there are a lot -- a lot to do, and there are a lot of good people who paid into the social security system. for the smaller share of those americans who are disabled, whose cancer, traumatic brain injury is so severe that they cannot work, we have a social security benefit. for that reason, the operative word for these hearings really should be improvement. improvement of the disability insurance program. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman's time has

expired. thank you, mr. boomer. [laughter] as is customary, any member is welcome to submit a statement for the hearing record. before we move on to our testimony today, i want to remind our witnesses to please limitaire oral statement to five minutes. however, without objection all the testimony will be made a part of the hearing record. we have one panel today and our witnesses who are seated at the table are steve goss. he's the chief actuary at the social security administration. thank you for being here. virginia reno, vice president for income security policy at the national academy of social insurance, and andrew biggs, resident scholar at the american enterprise substitute. thank you all again. mr. goss, welcome. you may proceed. >> thank you very, very much, mr. chairman. members of the committee, it's a pleasure to be here and thanks for the opportunity to

talk to you today about the social security disability insurance program. i'd like to talk to you, really, about a couple of things today. first of all, obviously, as has been stated, the social security disability insurance program provides benefits to about almost nine million workers, a total of 11 million beneficiaries, including their family members, to the tune of about $130 billion of expenditures. essential benefits for people who have found to be quite severely disabled and not able to work. it true that the disability program is a challenge and it's difficult. it's not like a retirement program. we know when you reach 62, it's not like an insurance program, we know when you die. this program is inherently more difficult to administer. i'm not here to be a cheerleader, but the social security administration and the state disability determination services is doing a pretty good job of administering this program. there are lots of challenges, though. i'd like to talk to you about

two things. one is the exx-rel status of the funds and the other are the drivers that have driven the cost of the program to be what it is today. i have a slide that is actually figure number one in the written testimony, which gives an illustration of what the trust fund levels are projected to be for the social security disability insurance program. as chairman johnson mentioned, we are projecting about 2018 p be the year at which the trust funds will become exhausted for the disability insurance program. however, at that time continuing tax income will still be sufficient to pay 86% of scheduled benefits, and more important, that percentage does not decline very much. by the year 2085 we project we'll still have enough tax funds to cover 83% of scheduled benefits. so the program is really on a sustainable course. it's just a little shy of funding. in order to really fully finance the program, we would have to have some combination of perhaps as much as a 16%

reduction in benefits over the next 75 years, or 20% increase in revenue, or some combination of the two. this next slide, which is figure three in the written testimony, really, i think, puts in perspective what has happened with the disability insurance program. and it's the first look at what the drivers of the costs of the social security program are. we can break those into two kinds of drivers with the coals of the social security program. one are the basic demographic drivers, which we've all talked about. we've heard mention of the baby-boomers. the baby-boomers are coming up into our retirement system over the next 20 years. but the real news for the disability insurance program is they're already here. the baby-boomers have already had maximum impact as of really today for the costs of the disability insurance program. from 1990 to the year 2010, over that 20-year period, the baby-boom generation moved from ages 25 to 44, where not many people are disabled, to ages

45-to 64, where disability is highly prevalent. so we've already moved into, in effect, the worst of times in terms of disability prevalence. the boomers are there. and thereafter, you can see on this chart, that the cost of social security disability insurance program, as a percentage of our gross domestic product, is about level. in fact, even declining slightly. so we're at the peak of cost of social security now and actually, the cost goes down somewhat. we're at a shortfall, and it needs to be addressed, but it's not projected to become worse. why is in? we know on the basic demographic driver of population, we've already reached the worst. so where do we go from here? the next driver that's really worse than that that is more disability specific is one that is related to something that mr. becerra mentioned, about more women have been working over the last 20 years. but more importantly, more women have been working consistently enough to be insured for benefits under the disability insurance program. you can see on this chart, from

1970 to 2010, the percentage of women in our population who are insured for disability benefits, should they become disabled, that is jumped from 35% to 60%, it's doubled. men and women are close together, so we don't expect a lot of change in the future. we've had an increase in the number of women who are insured for disability. men have stayed about the same and in the future we expect this to be basically stable. a second driver that we can ook at for the cost of the program that has had a lot of influence over time is, of course, becoming disabled. if you're insured, the next step is, have you become disabled? p limiting the number of people who become disabled each year. you can see by this chart about how up and down the numbers have been in the past. our percentage of people in the population have become disabled. they've bounced around quite a bit between 1975 and 2010. if you look at the line for the males, they've been around five

per thousand over the past 20 years on average. and that's about what we project it to be in the future. so we don't expect a lot of change for the probability of becoming disabled amongst men. women, however, used to be much less likely to become disabled at any given age than men, but they have moved up. just like with the insured status, women have moved up towards parity with the men. so we are reaching a point where women and men are now somewhere and going into the future, we expect stablet on this, too. -- stability on this, too. i won't take time to go through the chart, but hopefully we'll have time to reflect on it. it gives explanations of why we have moved up and down so much in terms of the disability incidence rates or the probability of becoming disabled. there are many factors, economic recessions, changes in policy that we'll probably be talking more about. getting back to the basic drivers that have driven what's happened in the past, we've seen -- we've had the basic population, the tendency to become disabled, and the

insured status. we put all those together and that explains a lot of why the female percentage of population that is disabled, the probability of being disabled, has risen so much over the last 20 years. >> can you sum up -- >> absolutely, yes. virtually done. thank you very much. but for males, it has continued to go up. one of the things -- let me put up one last slide. the real change that has occurred why even males have increased the population that is disabled is because we've had a shift in our probability of becoming disabled towards younger ages. hopefully that's something we can talk more about. but these are the basic drivers that have driven the cost of social security up over the last 20 years and we expect it will be relatively stable in the future. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. we're facing a vote here in about 10 or 15 minutes, and what we intend to do is go ahead with your testimony and should a vote be called, it will be a long one, and we will

not continue this hearing. what we will do is ask our members to submit questions to you in writing and hopefully you all will be able to answer them. >> mr. chairman, to clarify, we'll go as long as we can before the votes are required. >> yes. yes, of course. >> ms. reno, welcome. please go ahead. >> thank you. thank you, chairman johnson, ranking member becerra and other members of the committee. i'm delighted to have the chance to talk to you today about the disability insurance program. i will make the following points very quickly. first, the growth in the program is due largely to demographics, and i will skip over that because steve goss has covered that very well. second, people who get the benefits rely very heavily on them. and as a society, we need this protection. third, the eligibility rules for getting benefits are very strict and they do not appear to have become more lenient over time. lastly, the program does appear

to be affordable out into the long-term future, as the act yareyal projections show, if we're willing to pay foirt, and, yes, there's room for -- for it, an, yes, there's room for improvement. on the question, do people need the benefits? benefits are an essential lifeline to those who receive them. that's nearly nine million americans. nearly half of the people who get benefits rely on those benefits for almost all their income. the benefits yet are modest. an average of less than $13,000 a year for a disabled worker, which is a little more than the poverty threshold for one living alone. for a disabled worker with eligible children, the average ben if it is under $20,000. that's a little more than the poverty threshold for a family of three, but not much. but the disability program helps account for the fact that social security lists over five million working-age people out

of poverty. this is insurance that people pay for through premiums that come out of their paychecks. and the fact that it's insurance is critically important. people simply can't save enough on their own to cover the risk of disability. this is a risk that absolutely requires insurance, because few of us do become disabled, but the results are devastating when it happens. this insurance is also most efficient if it's universal through social security, and we all need it and we -- as we agree, it's important to preserve this. on the eligibility rules, they're very strict. inability to engage in any substantial gainesville activity by reason of an impairment that's determined by medical evidence, expected to last at least a year or result in death. substantial gainful activity in this context means ability to earn 1,000 a month or more. the test considers your capacity to do any work that

exists in the national economy, not just work you've done before. so this test is stricter than in private disability insurance systems in most cases. it's stricter than workers compensation and veterans compensation, which pay partial benefits for partial disabilities. and it does require clear medical evidence to document the existence of the condition and the functional limitations imposed by that condition. as partial evidence of the strictness of the rules, we've looked at research over the years about what happens to people who are denied benefits. a new ram study issued just this year finds -- looked at people denied benefits and found that 20% to 30% of those that had been denied did engage in substantial gainesville activity. what does this -- againful activity. what does this mean? for that 20% or 30%, social security's decision to deny the benefits was correct. they can in fact work, according to the rules of the

bram. but at the same time, 70% to 80% of the people turned down for benefits did not go back to work. this suggests that many people who have applied for benefits and are being denied nonetheless have significant impediments to work. this does not necessarily mean we should be liberalizing the rules, but it's simply a cautionary tale about the notion that the program is becoming too lenient. a blue ribbon panel of the organization that i represent reviewed all past studies of the program based for denied applicants between way back from 1964 through the 1990's and found that fewer than half of denied applicants later worked. the non-working denied applicants were generally poor, they relied mainly of income of other family members or limited welfare payments. so to recap, the history of our d.i. outlays, as steve pointed out, shows that by and large

the program is keeping up with our growing workforce and our aging workforce, as boomers are passing through their high disability years. clearly people need the benefits, and as a society, we need the protection. the rules for getting benefits appear to be very strict. the program is affordable and sustainable going forward, if we're willing to pay for it, and, yes, there is room for improvement. >> thank you, ma'am. dr. biggs, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. members of the committee, thank you for the opportunities to testify today with regard to the future of social security disability insurance program, which pays benefits to almost 9 million disabled americans and perhaps more importantly, provides protection against disability to over 150 million workers. much of the increase in disability insurance costs are documented by steve goss, are

trivialy aging the population, as individuals shift into the years in which they're most likely to become disabled. it's attributed to disability over and above what an aging population would imply. this is puzzling, given a self-reported disability rates recorded by the census bureau have remained roughly constant over the past three decades. giving the aging of the population. these self-reported disability rates, which individuals report whether they suffer from a disability that impairs their ability to engage in work, given the aging population, these self-reported rates should have risen. so we have a puzzle. this implies that the age adjusted disability rates likely have fallen in terms of self-reported rates, the opposite of what we've seen in terms of program allowances. lower self-reported disability rates make sense, though, when you consider higher incomes, improved technologies and health and less physically demanding jocks. remember, that in the past many

americans worked in factories, mills and mines, which exacted a significant cost to their health. if there is an upside to this shift to a service economy, it is that the health of workers should improve. whatever the cause is, the data seem to reflect improving health and lower self-reported disability among working-age americans, and yet, caseloads continue to increase. the percentage of americans with self-reported disabilities who are in the workforce today dropped by almost half since 1980. the key to reform is incentives for employers to provide rehabilitation and accommodation, rather than to shift disabled employees out of the workforce and on to the d.i. rolls. under current law, disabled employees represent costs to employers that can be eliminated, if the employ egos on d.i. s.s.a. cannot provide assistance until after an individual has been approved for d.i., a process that can take years. during which the worker's skills and motivation decline.

at the crucial time in which a disabled worker might be helped to remain a worker, no one really has the incentive to do so. proposed reforms are designed to give employers greater incentives to keep workers working. disability reforms passed in the netherlands over the past decade or so have worked from this model and have helped reduce what was among the highest disability rates in the world, to levels that are comparable to those in the united states. the lesson is that reform cannot think solely in terms of the program's finances of finding a combination of tax rates and benefit levels that keep the system solvent over the long term. a sustainable solution goes beyond simply saying no to d.i. applicants, but finding ways to keep americans with disabilities on the job is and integrated into society fl thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. i appreciate your testimony. i'm not sure that we have time to go into questions. i which we're voting -- >> what if we agree to -- all

of us agree to two or three minutes, instead of five? >> that's ok with me. can you all agree to two-minute question sessions? >> maybe one. >> ask one question? we'll try to do that. thank you. i appreciate you all being here. mr. goss, let me ask you, on page one of your testimony, you say 6.3% cost of living adjustment for december 2011 was larger than expected and wages grew slower than expected, both of which may cause the trust fund reserves to exhaust earlier than is currently expected. can you tell me how much earlier? yes, i think i can. our projection on the trustees report was in fact that we would be solvent and still have trust fund assets in the d.i. program into 2018, but only just barely. the level of our assets were projected to be only 5% of

annual program costs at the beginning of 2018. it looks as though the higher than expected cost of living adjustments, which provides higher benefits, would be sufficient to bring us into 2017. i might also mention that o.m.b. and c.b.o. are both at this point are projecting 2017 for the exhaustion date. but, again, at that point we would have enough tax revenue coming in to pay 86% of benefits. >> there's not much tax going into that system. mr. becerra, you're recognized for one minute. >> he pointed out the tissue of self-reporting. as an actuary, are you and those who work with you that come up with these estimates estimating that we're going to see a drop in the number of people who are classifiable as disabled over the years, as the

baby boom generation ages into that range? >> we're not really projecting that. i'm sure dr. biggs would agree. self-reporting is a tricky issue, especially when you're working over a period of decades. the way people view disability and whether or not you're disabled can change. as a societal level over periods of time. when we look at the disability interest rates that we talked about before, we've seen that it's been quite stable for men on an age-sex adjusted basis over time. for women, the rates of becoming disabled have risen quite substantially, but only just up to about the level of men. so we feel fairly confident that given that men have been pretty stable for a long period of time and their tendency to become disabled and women, which used to have a much lower tendency, have moved up similar to men and their likelihood of becoming disabled, that they will probably continue to be -- marching at about the same rates into the future.

>> thank you very much. yield back, mr. chairman. >> i've got so many questions that -- ok. >> why don't we start with -- >> wait a minute. are you going to ask a question now? >> well, i mean, in one minute, i'll just yield. i needed 20 minutes. [laughter] >> mr. marchand, can you question? >> mr. biggs, in your testimony you say that disability is a subjective condition and that government isn't good at making subjective judgments, leaving room for discretion, error and variability. what do you mean by this? >> well, disability covers a range of infirmities that can

go from a slight impairment of your ability to work to a total impairment. and congress has to decide where on that spectrum they are going to draw the line and see that people on one side of the line are going to qualify for benefits and people on the other side of the line are not going to qualify for benefits. so it's a subjective judgment where to draw that line, and opinions can differ with that. one of the difficulties, though, is that -- is applying this in practice. we see variability and acceptance rates from examiner to examiner. so it means that even given the rules set down by congress, there is subjectivity in terms of who is accepted and who is denied. i don't think you can get rid of that. it is just the nature of what we're looking at. but one of the points i make in my written testimony is that congress has to be very aware that it is the ones that make the decisions. congress has been elected to decide how we're going to run this program, and so it should

try to be as concise and specific as it can be in laying out the criteria by which people will be accepted for d.i. benefits, so we're not simply passing that off to s.s.a. or to examiners or to a.l.j.'s, because i think that's not their job. so congress should give them as much specific guidance as they can, based on the values and judgments that it comes to in terms of where we draw that line. >> thank you. mr. shock, you may question. >> yeah, i've got a question for any of the three panelists. i'm curious if any of you studied the effect of claims for s.s.i. based on the economic conditions. in other words, when there's higher rates of unemployment, more joblessness. you could speculate, but perhaps more people decide that they are unemployable because of a disability. >> well, we certainly have seen, with the most recent recession, which started in 2008 and we reached sort of the

bottom of the recession in mid 2009, we saw a significant increase in the number of claims for disability for both the title ii d.i. program and for the title 16, as you might expect. there are a substantial number of people in our population who have medically determinable imparmentse and many of these -- impairments, and many of these people through force of will or being very, very determined, work anyway. but clearly the nature of the program is such that people who are in that position have very strong medically determinable impairments. if they lose their job, they will have a greater opportunity versus someone who does not to apply for benefits and perhaps get them. the other thing that i think is important to keep in mind about the disability insurance program and medically determinable impairments is that most of these impairments are things that do progress over time. so if a person has a medically determinable impairment to a certain degree, which, as dr. biggs indicates, may not chris bosh the threshold of

qualifying for disability, a year or two later it may in fact cross that threshold and that's probably why, through the determination process, sometimes people get allowed a year or two after they first apply, when they were not allowed initially. but certainly at time of recession and so some of the charts we have we show the number of people who file for disability benefits and end up getting benefits clearly rises, in large part just because when employment is good, when employers are trying to employ lots of people, people with i am parptse and everybody else find it relatively easy to get a job. when we're in a strong re session, lots of people are out of work and look for a way to put bread on the table. zoned social security disability benefits are available for those who would qualify. i would hasten to say that i do not think that anybody would suggest that the criteria used at social security as an examiner and elsewhere is modified at all at time of recession. it's a matter of having more

people apply who would qualify in any case. >> so it's your estimation that the same criteria is used whether or not they qualify, but those who wish to apply goes up because they're out of work, and this is one form of receiving assistance. >> i would suggest i think it's clear that everybody in our population, the united states has a very strong work ethic, if we compare ourselves to many other countries, especially on the other side of the atlantic. and given that strong work ethic, virtually everybody in this country, given the opportunity for a good-paying job versus taking benefits from social security, will take the good-paying job. so -- >> i agree. >> so people who really find their ways on to the disability rolls i think in general has mrs. reno indicated, are people having a hard time finding a job and for a good reason. >> so i'm hearing you say you don't think americans are lazy.

>> i would concur with that completely. >> i agree. >> thank you. >> and thank you all for bearing with us. we're in a little bit of time compression today and thank you for your testimony. the members will have some time to write questions, if y'all will answer they will. so i thank you for being here and i look forward to working with you and our colleagues as we continue to examine the challenges facing this program and solutions. with that, the committee stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national satellite corp. 2011]

>> it's been 90 days of my inauguration. every american soldier and every american prisoner will be out of the jungle and out of their cells and back home in america, where they belong. >> mcgovern's pledge at the 1972 democratic convention came nearly a decade after being one of the first senators to speak out publicly against the vietnam war. the senator from south dakota suffered a landslide defeat that year to president nixon, but his groundbreaking campaign changed american politics and the democratic party. george mcgovern is featured this week on c-span's "the contenders," from the mcgovern center for leadership in mitchell, south dakota, live don't at 8:00 eastern.

next, today's white house briefing with press secretary jay carney. he talked about the republican payroll tax plan and the most recent unemployment numbers, which dropped to 8.6%. the lowest level since march, 2009. this is 40 minutes. that was a good event today. i do not know what you are talking about. let me begin with a quick statement. the president looks forward to welcoming stephen harper to the white house on wednesday. canada is a close ally and partner, and the president looks forward to discussing our relationship, including economic competitiveness and security and key global issues.

i said key global issues. glorious day. i promise to be brief in my answers. let's get on with the questions. >> the president was measured today in his response to the jobs report. as part of his response, trying to lower expectations in case this trend does not hold? >> let's look at the numbers. the key number here is another month, 21st month in a row, a private sector job growth. 140,000, this month. that is significant because it demonstrates nearly 3 million jobs have been created since we began to turn this economy around. you are right and that we do not

make much out of one month's numbers. we look for trends and we have an enormous amount of work to do. % ght points its -- 8.6 unemployment is way too high, and that is why the president is concentrating on getting this passed through concourse, because he thinks it is essential to have the ext onera $1,500 next year so the economy can keep growing, keep growing faster, and keep bringing down the unemployment rate. signs of progress are good, but we have a long way to go, and in many ways it reiterates why we have to get this payroll tax cut passed, and what congress should

pass every element of the american jobs at because the unemployment remains a significant problem. >> you said quite possibly he could take more of a role. [unintelligible] >> president and the team will be working with congress to get the payroll tax cut passed. it is shocking to many americans who are paying attention that not only did republicans vote against a payroll tax cut expansion that was paid for an entirely reasonable, but a majority of republicans voted against their bill, which means the issue is not before -- pay for. it is not how you pay for this.

it is whether or not republicans want to extend a tax cut to 160 million americans. you tend to think you know what is going to happen. i thought the bill last night was surprising, given the unbelievable lack of support in one party for getting tax cuts the middle class americans, and what a shocking about it even more so is the fact that so many republicans have in the past said they supported payroll tax cut. we will work night and day to make sure that americans that tax relief that they need and deserve and this economy needs and deserves. >> can you tell us how the press that will work with the team? >> i do not have anything right now. it will involve conversations at different levels and an effort to find a way to get this done,

because it is the right thing to do for the economy and the american people. i'm going to get a little crazy here. >> he said the issue is not how you pay for it. it is essentially the view of the administration that the payroll tax cut be paid for? >> the payroll tax cut extension and expansion was a significant component that was entirely paid for in a way that is economically sensible and asks only that -- part of the jobs back. part of the bill that performed much better yesterday, including a single republican senator in support, had as its pay-for a simple request that the 300,000 or so wealthiest taxpayers in america pay a little extra on their income over $1 million so

that 160 million americans get a tax cut next year. the president believes the preferable way to do this is to have it paid for, and he will work with congress to try to get this done in a way that meets his priorities. wrong path to go is to cut education or energy or had star or programs the central to the people you're trying to help to the payroll tax cuts. i am not going to negotiate the end game of this process. what i will say is that it will stun me if members of congress of the republican party truly want to head into next year having voted to raise taxes on middle-class americans. >> up against our concern of

weakening social security. >> the president put forward a way to pay for this extension expansion. the social security actuary has said to reassure senators who might be concerned about the trust fund that it has no impact on the trust fund. the trust fund is made whole through u.s. treasurys to the safest investments in the world. the issue is it is not more about how you pay for it, because we saw last night in the votes. it is whether one party wants to give tax cuts to middle-class americans. a lot on december 16, there is talk of rolling into one holiday

package the extenders, benefits extension, as well as a payroll tax cut. do it all at once. is that something that you think is feasible? >> again that is getting ahead of the process in terms of what the sausage-making might look like in the next several weeks. we are focused on a number of things, principally that the payroll tax extension and expansion and also the preparation bills and getting the work that needs to be done by the end of the year dunce in a way that ensures that are doing right by the american economy. >> [unintelligible] >> i would not dare to predict the future from here today.

>> province said the date they want to pass a bill designed to -- what is your reaction to that bill and how will the president reacted that if they are connected? >> this is a process that is being run out of the state department. the president has made clear what the criteria needs to be considering this project, but it is a process being run out of state, and the timeline is being decided by on the merits and the issues by those who are reviewing it at stake. i will refer you to them. >> the house bill will try to go around that? >> we think the establishment of the state department has a place for this review has existed for years, exists in a national security directive, and predates

that by many decades. the president -- precedent is proper. i am not on to get into that, but the proper place for it to be done is where it has been done in the past. the necessary criteria that needs to go into a decision like this are considered. >> you said let's look at the numbers, and use at 8.6% unemployment is way too high. black unemployment numbers have gone up again. >> way too high. we have to do everything we can, including extending unemployment insurance, including making sure this tax cut for 160 million working americans gets in place.

if we were being truly sensible, if congress were being truly sensible, it would pass all the elements of the american jobs act, which is paid for entirely so it does not add a gun to our deficit. if you did it all, it would have the impact that outside economists said it would have, which is adding up to 2% growth to our gdp, adding many hundreds of thousands of jobs. this is what our economy needs. this the medicine our economy needs. apparently, only in one section of capitol hill is there disagreement about this, because support of this approach is widespread in communities across america. in every region of the country. from people who call themselves democrats, independents, and republicans. that is what the president designed the act so it is filled with provisions that both parties have supported in the

past because he thought it wasn't for to do that so it had a chance of getting the support necessary to pass out of congress and be signed into law by hand. >> what is the comparable number that this administration has set for a normal, healthy unemployment rate in this country? >> i would let economists the guy with that. this president has said and is committed to not resting until he knows every american is very american looking for a job gets a job. again, we are not in any danger of reaching a point where the unemployment rate is satisfactorily low, which is why we need to do everything we can through congress, to the president's executive authority and working with partners in the

process -- private sector. to build the foundation of an economy that can grow into the future, which is what the better buildings initiative does. this is a multifaceted attack on the number one problem facing this country, which is the need to grow the economy and create jobs. >> there are reports out of the canadian press that the president will announce cross- border security agreement. >> i do not have anything beyond what they will discuss the on security issues. i have not read the canadian press report today. >> the treasury secretary is going to europe next week. can you talk about what he hopes to get out of that trip and what influence he has on that? >> this is part of an ongoing

engagement at secretary geithner has had since he took office. this year, as we have offered our advice and counsel to the europeans, as they deal with their debt crisis, terry geithner ur as treasury -- secretary geithner ur has a great deal of experience dealing with this secretary -- this situation. he will deal with his counterparts and they continued steps to try to get it under control in a decisive way. that is what the trip will be about, and it is part of an on go for -- ongoing effort he has made. [unintelligible] none that i am aware of. the position we think europe needs to do is very clear, and

is shared by a lot of our european counterparts, is the need to establish a fire wall that is sufficient to the task at hand. there are a variety of ways you can do that. we encourage europeans to work towards getting that done in a conclusive way. >> he expects congress will get the payroll tax cut down. otherwise we will all be here at christmas. was that an offhand remark for the first mention of a hammer, something that he would do? >> is the measure of the seriousness of the issue at hand, the impact at raising the average american family's taxes by a thousand dollars next year would have, the negative impact.

and the president's commitment to ensuring the payroll tax cut is passed and it is handled in a responsible and reasonable way. >> did he suggest to the leadership he would do this? >> i suppose they heard about what he said today. i will not add any more context what the president said. you heard what he said. what it represents is his determination to continue to put pressure on congress to do the right thing here, which is to support the kind of tax cuts republicans used to support and democrats support. we hope they will hear that call, if not from him, from their constituents, because i cannot they want to go home and explain why they wanted to raise taxes on working americans in order to protect the tax breaks

of 300,000 of the wealthiest americans and the country. i am trying to see how that might break down by district, but it cannot be fervor of all, unless you represent beverly hills. the vast majority of constituents of every member of senate's's and constituencies are represented by the 160 million people who would get a tax cut in this bill. >> the unemployment rate went down largely because over 2000 people just left -- over 300,000 people just left the work force. why would congress pass -- >> let me make the point that one of the reasons why we do not get too off over -- too up over

andmonth's house of news, there is a long-term unemployment issue that is a serious problem, which is what the president insists congress to extend unemployment benefits. that helps people looking for work and needing assistance, and helps the economy. economists will tell you, not at junks of one-party -- adjuncts of one party or the other. economists out in the country, not affiliated with the party, will tell you a payroll tax cut as a major wall direct positive impact on the economy. unemployment insurance extension has a positive impact on the economy. that is not disputed. >> you said the problem is long- term unemployment. you are talking about short-term measures.

>> it is defined by those who have been unemployed more than six months. again, let's step back and review the facts. 21 months now straight up private sector job growth. this comes after 8 million jobs lost a recession that was in full bloom when this president was sworn into office, a recession that we now know was convicts -- was shrinking the economy by 9% when he was taking office, getting sworn in. the record since then has been one of stopping the bleeding, arresting the free-fall of our economy, preventing the second great depression in american history, and putting us back on a course toward economic growth and job creation. the problem is the whole was so deep that this recession caused -- the hole was so deep that

even now we are at 3 million jobs created since positive job growth began, is not nearly enough when you lost 8 million jobs in a terrible recession. that is why the president believes we have to pass a payroll tax extension and do things through his estate of a party, why we should have -- why congress should have voted to put 400,000 teachers back to work, construction workers back to work, and he is not want to let up. >> long term changes so people and businesses. >> you saw the president put forward a long-term debt reduction deal. the president does believe we need tax reform. outside analysts have said as they reviewed the facts this president's commitment to

regulatory reform through his look-back provision has meant the number and cost of regulations instituted by this administration is fewer and less costly than in the previous administration. the people complaining about regulation in congress, i do not remember them talking about that in the previous administration. but in the senate bill, you had a veto threat over this detainee language. the acl you still wants the president to veto that bill. -- the aclu still wants the president to veto that bill. , a number of issues -- >> a number of issues on the detainee issue. officials have said the language in this bill would jeopardize our national security by restricting flexibility in our

fight against al qaeda. by ignoring these recommendations, including recommendations of the secretary of defense, fbi, attorney general, the senate has engaged in political micromanagement to the extent -- our position has not changed. any bill that challenges or constrains the authorities to collect intelligence incapacitates -- propped his advisers to recommend a veto. we will see how this progresses. that is my answer on that. >> you said about the relationship between the payroll tax cut and the economy, but i wonder if you guys think the initiatives that the american people see the president involved in are reassuring to them, that he has been working on creating jobs. do people see a connection?

>> you would have to go out and ask folks that. the data i have seen suggest there is broad support for the initiatives the president has put forward and that most americans feel like we should be doing something to help the economy grow and create jobs. one of the ironies of the debate about the payroll tax cut extension and the broader debate about american jobs act is is not clear at all whether or not we would be having discussions about measures to grow the economy and create jobs if the president had not put it forward. it could be republicans seemed so i'm interested in extending this tax cut for middle-class americans that had this president not been pushing it it might not have come up at all pericarp >> is this what animates this we can wait campaign? is that reassuring to people?

>> what my sense is it's the american people expect their president as well as the members of congress to be doing everything they can, big things and smaller things, to address the biggest problems that face the country. in this case, unemployment, wrote that is not substantial enough -- those of our major challenges we face and we should be tackling here in washington, working together. the administration and congress, the administration using it's a sick of attorney, working with the private -- the administration using its executive of party, working with the private sector. given the size of the economic calamity that befell this country in the last -- prior to him taking office. we are going to try everything

to address this problem. >> when european leaders were here this week, are they still asking for money for bailout money? >> i would not characterize conversations in that way. in the past, the discussions the president has had at his level with his counterparts have been about what the best approaches are to ensuring action is taken that resolve's conclusively the debt crisis that europe has, and that is the figuring out a fire wall that is substantial enough to meet the challenge. we have made clear this is a problem that is a european problem that europeans have the capacity to deal with. our role has been to offer our

advice and counsel because of our experience in this matter and because we live in the global economy and there are impacts that the situation in europe has already caused for the global economy and could cause if it gets worse. it isn't our interests not just as friends and allies of our european counterparts, but as regards to the global connolly and its affect -- effect on this economy. >> did anything happen this week's that shows you about the willingness -- >> i would suggest you might ask treasury about that. i am wary of making comments that can drive markets. what we have seen is i think an acknowledgement -- this goes back to g-20 to the steps that

need to be taken and europeans have sought taken steps toward resolving this issue, and we have been advising them on the kinds of steps they need to take to to get the job finished. >> [unintelligible] who else the president blame for this continued situation? >> he is not into blaming. the statement that the hole is deep is a fact. 8 million jobs lost is a serious situation, the kind of jobs lost since the great depression. those are the facts that we as a country have been dealing with as we have emerged out of the recession. he is not interested in blaming people for why we got into it.

we did not get into it overnight, and we cannot get out of it overnight, but we can continue to work in doing smaller measures as well as big things like the american jobs at to make sure the economy grows and creates jobs. we need to keep that because gone to the questions about europe, we need to take actions on the things we can control to provide the insurance and offer for our economy so we can withstand the kind of shocks to the global economy that can happen, whether they come from europe or asia or the middle east. this is a responsible thing to do in an economy that is growing, but not fast enough, and is creating jobs, but not at a big enough clip. is what he is focused on. >> does the administration viewed the situation on the ground there -- in s

yria? civil war? >> we have seen the level of violence increased, but change there does not mean necessarily civil war. the crackdown has come because violence that the syrian government has perpetrated against its people. hen the government stops violent actions, violence recedes. rather than characterized it, we're working with our international partners to increase pressure on the assad regime to isolate assad and to make it clear the behavior is unacceptable. as you know, the turkish government has taken action this week. the european union has taken action this week on economic sanctions against the syrian

regime. we commend those actions. they come after an additional actions announced by the treasury department. combined, that sends a strong message of international unity, and it will have the effect of increasing pressure on assad and his circle. >> is the president got to make in their quest to cuba to release -- by tomorrow on the two-year anniversary of his captivity? >> tomorrow will mark the two- year anniversary of the unjustified detention of alan gross by the cuban authorities. he has suffered tremendously during this ordeal. it is past time for him to return to his family, where he belongs.

cubans had failed in their efforts to use mr. gross as a pawn to their ends. mr gross in a devoted worker who has developed -- who has -- we remain steadfast and our support for cuba and civil society and the desire of the people to determine their own future. i cannot want to make any announcements about what he may or may not be same period, the heat get involved in the rail strike talks? >> the administration was engaged because of the potential impact of that strike had it happened on the economy. the president is responsible for

everything that happens in his administration. he was kept apprised of developments. yes. >> he was cautiously hopeful [unintelligible] is that a change at all from the out local -- outlook -- >> i would say what he said, that we are hopeful. for all the reasons i've been saying for a long time, they have the resources, they know what needs to be done, and it is a difficult challenge, having been through something similar, and that is why we're working with them and providing advice that might be helpful and useful and a situation like this. i would not note that as a change. yes, bill. >> back to the payroll tax

bracket -- payroll tax. you have a meeting of minds on the fact that payroll tax should be increased. the difference is on me pay- for. is going forward with no pay-for an option? >> the debate is not about the pay-for. even with their pay-fors, republicans voted against their own bill, the bill that senator mcconnell put forward, suggesting there was a majority support for it. the question is not -- some think and they are right that a payroll tax cut helps the economy. it certainly does. what we have not seen his at

result in support in votes for absolutely necessary measures to extend the payroll tax cuts. >> given the numbers that republicans have gotten to 60 for the payroll tax cut without a pay-for -- >> what the president has put forward is to the american jobs at is a very responsible and sensible way to pay for it, one supported by the majority of the american people. when senate democrats look forward to it in specific case of legislation on the payroll tax cut extension and expansion is another way that is responsible and supported by a majority of the american people to pay for it. we think that is the preferable way to go. that is the president's position. i will not rule out from here what he may or may not support when this stain is to the finish line, as we hope it does.

what i have said in terms of pay-fors is there are some that he would support and there are clearly some that he would not, because he wants to make sure that however we proceed we do it in a way that is possible, that keeps our commitments, including once we have made in august to the budget control act, and does not do harm to the economy or harm to sectors of the american public who need our help. >> we also -- we often do the lesser of two evils. we may do a payroll access without a pay-for. >> the president prefers to pay for it in the manner he put forward in the american jobs act, and we will see how the proceeds from here. the second part on the general principle of paying for tax cuts, while interesting to uphold the sudden focus on this among republicans, there is a long multi-decade history of

republicans not believing in and stating that tax cuts do not need to be paid for. that is their position. >> the joint appearance today of the 42nd and the 44th president have reawakened speculation of a ticket. but only among people who absolute not absolutely nothing -- >> only among people who absolutely know nothing about what they speak. bill clinton or secretary clinton? the president has spoken to this. the vice president has spoken to this. barack obama and joe biden will be on the ticket and will be taking the oath of office in 2013. >> representative posey

recommended eight pay-for for the payroll tax holiday. is that something that has been discussed with the white house and the white house would support? >> i do not want to speculate about what a package might look like, especially that it has not been put in legislative form yet. i was here when the democratic leader gave this press conference, so i am not aware of that. thanks very much. we will be providing a week ahead powell later. we do not have it ready yet. >> you said guerrilla dust -- gorilla dust? >> you have in salted your colleagues. gorilla dust is a diversionary

uerrillas dog when in combat. it is a defensive measure. >> like saying blowing smoke. >> thanks a lot, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] a look at the life and times of george mcgovern, who ran for the presidency in 1972 and severed a landslide defeat. on c-span2, peter hart conducts

a focus group with voters in virginia. and at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c- span3, the heads of fannie mae and freddie mac testify before a subcommittee. all these tonight on the c-span tv networks. now defense department spokesman told a briefing with reporters at the pentagon. he spoke about relations with pakistan and defense department cuts. this is 35 minutes. >> good afternoon. we do not have any announcements, so we will go to questions. >> pakistan. first, have you -- as the u.s. then notified by pakistan that they will not be participating

in the investigation, and can you top overall about what impact this may or may not have on the supplies may be getting into winter. there are a lot of supplies sitting at the waterfront waiting to go? is there jeopardy involved? >> pakistan has been involved invited -- vied it to participate in the investigation. they have declined to participate in the investigation. the relationship with pakistan remains important to the united states. we think cooperation with paquette -- which pakistan is essential. we realize the bonds in the roads we have experienced over the past several months. we will work hard to work with our pakistani counterparts to

get over this latest bump in the road. now with regard to the supply routes, we look forward to working with pakistan to get those dates back open. that said, the justice is about alternatives. it is about options, and we are working through what options we may need to pursue. i will say one thing, and that is we have a important mission in afghanistan and we will make sure we have what we need to accomplish that mission. >> two questions. has the department formulating policies for how it will handle detainees transferred for military custody? has the department communicated opposition to the effort to strip away the secret station language? >> we believe the provisions

that have been proposed would impose restrictions on our ability to deal effectively in the counter-terrorism arena. flexibility is keep when it comes city detention of terrorism suspects. it is important to disrupt plots and to bring terrorists to justice. the defense department prides itself, and we do not believe we should take any options off the table when it comes to the attention of certain individuals connected to terrorism. with respect to sequestration -- >> wondering if the secretary or the of the apartment has in any way we did on that hill to express opposition to its effort to strip away the secret stash

of language. >> from the defense budget. the secretary supports the president on this on the triggering mechanism. the secretary from the outset of this process has encouraged the strategy-driven process that looks not only at the defense budget, but also at the entire federal budget, discretionary, mandatory, and even revenues. this is someone who has addressed virtually every budget battle over the last 25 or 30 years. he wants to have a national conversation about the entire budget. when it comes to sequestration, we have not been asked to plan for it. our focus right now is on dealing with the more than $450 billion we have agreed to in cuts, and that will drive this mission and the department's ry 2013 budget.

>> is a lot of nervousness that more than half would come from modernization. is that accurate? >> i do not think any decisions have been made at all when it comes to the budget, let alone on percentages when it comes to modernization. rest assured that the secretary and department, the senior leadership understand the importance of modernization. we understand the importance of doing our part to contribute to deficit reduction. everything remains on the table, tony. the american people should feel confident we are going to have the weapons system and the capabilities, skills, expertise we need to address the serious national security threats of the future. >> general and electric's announced they would pull the plug on the second engine of the joint strike fighter.

what is your reaction to their announcement today? >> the department has expressed its views on the second engine over time. we understand the decision of ge and rolls-royce. i'd want to say these are very important industrial partners and do a lot of work with the defense department. they are an important part of our base, and we look forward to continuing to work with them. >> i cannot understand when you said the american people should be confident that the troops will have everything they need, flanders did you correctly. that is what the secretary has been wanting what does not happen, if all of this -- >> if sequestration happens, that would be devastating. it would be. if we did this in a strategy- driven manner and if we look to

find savings in certain areas that lead us to any effective fighting force, that may be smarter, smaller, it will still have capabilities we need to confront the threat of the future, then we will be able to support the security needs of this country and our commitments around a world. if we move to sequestration, that is an irresponsible out,, not just for us in the defense department, but more broadly. he wants congress to exercise leadership on this issue. >> the u.s. military, while it has offered condolences, specifically has not used the word "apology." why has the u.s. military not apologize for this incident, and

as the white house had any involvement in telling you not to apologize or say you are sorry, is something pakistan had asked for both >> we have expressed our regret for the loss of life in this department. what we are not want to do is get into fixing blame or fault right now. there is an investigation going on right now, let the facts take us where they make, and we continue to invite the pakistanis to participate in that investigation. >> why is it that in afghanistan, when there were mistakes made and tragic outcomes, the u.s. would apologize up front and then carry out an investigation. can you compared those incidents with this one, explain why there is no apology? >> expressed remorse and regret.

the cases you are referring to, we regard the death or the civilians.nnocentt engagement.military i >> you say blameless civilians in afghanistan. do you have reason to believe you were fired upon by pakistani troops? >> it was a military engagement, that resulted in the deaths of some two dozen pakistani soldiers, not civilians. i will not get into the details of how it occurred. that is what we are doing in the

investigation. >> de you believe any of the fire now came from pakistani soldiers rather than insurgents? >> i am not going to get into the details. >> george, in pakistan, pakistanis are demanding that the time has come for the u.s. to apologize, but trust and faith is eroding among pakistan is their government. how can you rebuild this relationship -- and there was

some kind of bitterness, and now even the u.s. ambassador -- where do we go from now? [unintelligible] >> they give for the question. let me say in strong terms that this was this is not in any way an intentional attack by the united states military on pakistan. the relationship with pakistan is absolutely critical and the central. we are partners with the government of pakistan. the sign of strength in any relationship is how we work through disagreements and incidents like this, and this was a tragedy. we are going to be working overtime to try to resolve our differences on this and other

matters so we can take along a few on the pakistan relationship. it is an essential one, and that is our goal. >> [unintelligible] this afternoon at a u.s. district court, [unintelligible] >> i have no knowledge of that particular case. we have longstanding concerns about -- ambitions and the kinds of operations that they conduct over there and the threat that they pose not just us but to our partners. >> ge and rolls royce said their

decision is based on changing circumstances. is there anything that -- there has been ongoing discussions about the self-funding project. is there anything that came out of dod that could explain the changing circumstances? >> there has been dialogue on this issue, but on many other issues with our industrial partners, including in this case. this was a decision that was made by a ge and rolls-royce at the end of the day. >> sequestration has entered our lexicon in this town. he said before that we should not be -- cussed it would not be going into effect until 2013.

are you seeing what are the side effects today near term within the next couple weeks of that problem as opposed to the final date? >> sequestration has not yet taken effect. sequestration bullet is fired in january but does not arrive until 2013. our focus is on developing a strategy around the more than $450 billion we have agreed to. our focus remains on fulfilling the various missions of this department. we hope sequestration does not occur, the secretary and others have called on congress to ensure it does not happen. our focus is not on planning for sequestration. we have not asked for sequestration. we are laser focus on our mission of protecting the

american people. >> is no short-term planning or budget destructions and the threat of this happening in 2013? >> it will factor in the $450 billion-plus cuts we have to take. congress has time to act to prevent sequestration. we urge them to do that. >> the military campaign in afghanistan proceeds apace out interruption, but there must be some adjustments that have to be made for the fact that the pakistanis have shut down cross- border operation. can you talk about what adjustments had you have had to make, what you are trying to do to restore the relationship on

the afghan side? >> the comments can be true at the same time, that the operations continue and adjustments have to be made. sometimes it is just of whether that affects the weather -- affects the way -- i would not go into any detail about any on the ground adjustments being made as a result of the shutdown of these two gates. there has not been, since it just occurred. there has not been an enormous impact our ability to operate. that magnifies the overtime, but so far there has been no impact on our ability to operate inside afghanistan. we will make sure that the troops have what they need when they need it to get the mission done. >> i am talking about cross- border corp., for example, in

east afghanistan where you need to coordinate with the coalition, and the need to coordinate military operations at the border and inshore militants -- ensure militants did not cross back into pakistan. that understand has been shut down as well. what effect have you seen of that? >> clearly an incident like this causes and should cause you to take a step back and look at how you are doing things and whether there needs to be improvements made or any kind of tactical decisions that do things differently. general colin is doing that -- general allen is doing that.

i would not discuss decisions being made. rest assured we are taking what happened last week and very seriously, and up until that time that there had been effort put into our coronation and communication with pakistanis at this control centers, and we hope that same level of effort can continue. clearly something went wrong here. that is why we are investigating it. the important work they are doing will continue. >> i would like to follow up on what you just said about the border control centers. >> border coordination centers. >> many of these are there? the pakistani officers -- have

they been pulled back? >> there are several, and i do not have it. i do not know what impact there has been to the participation. an incident like this trots into relief the risks, and clearly the potential for things to go awry. there are innumerable days in the past where we have been able to conduct operations close the border and things have gone well. we believe in the importance of these centers and the constant communication and coordination with the pakistan military across the border, and we want that to continue. our hope is that as bad as this is and we want to work through this, our hope and expectation is we will be able to continue

that kind of coronation communication that we were working up to before this incident happened. [unintelligible] i am will have to get you an answer on that, because i do not have an answer. i encourage you to talk to -- about that as well. >> can you discuss the focus of the meetings and what decisions came out of them? >> the secretary welcomed the commanders back to the pentagon. he has done so more than once recently, and he values his sessions with them to discuss the challenges they are facing in the areas of responsibility. a range of security issues were discussed as was the budget. no particular decisions were made about any of that, but this was the opportunity for him to receive input from senior military leaders and he thought

it was a productive session. >> george, general betsy and others have indicated that one of the impacts of the present cuts will be considerable reduction in force levels. as part of the review, the people in charge of that half to make strategic decisions about what the world is going to look like. what will the world look like in a few years' time? you can forget aboutabout the fr afghanistan? closely tooking very the world of the future. i will not get into the particulars at this moment. we probably will have more to say, the secretary will have more to say on that in january. at the end of the day, you

know, we need to meet our national security commitments and our commitments to the american people. >> are they saying you can forget about -- the levels that are required for afghanistan or for iraq? >> i will not indulge in speculation on the strategy at this point. i can tell you the process will be methodical and a thorough. it will be based on advice from civilians and military leaders inside this department. we will be getting closer to making these decisions in 2012. we will have a timetable in january. >> i do not think anyone is looking at these discussions from the perspective of for getting anything. we have been through 10 years of war. we have had to relearn at great

cost in blood and treasurer the lessons of counterinsurgency that we let loose after the vietnam war. this is not about for getting any one thing or one area and moving on to another. we are still going to be a global force. the u.s. forces going to be global. we have security commitments around the world that we know we're going to have to continue to meet. but there are decisions about how they are met, and that is really the focus of the strategy, the discussions that are ongoing. >> whatever force we have, it will be agile, portable, and equipped with the capabilities we need. >> per the nato airstrike, you just said the incident that makes the command step back and reassess.

have you seen it affected after this incident? immediately in any such incident. >> i think it is safe to say this has had a chilling effect on our relationship with the pakastani military. no question about that. both sides the meant to be hit as serious -- deem it to be as serious as it was. i am not going to speak for the government of pakistan, but every sovereign nation has the right of self-defense and the

rights to order their troops to defend themselves. that is what my understanding is. he reiterated their right of self-defense. we certainly respect the right. we have it as well. >> [unintelligible] official saying that pakistan authorized this attack. can you confirm or deny that? >> that is all part of the investigation. again, we are not going to get into any details of the incident being investigated. >> at a somewhat different pakistan question. -- a somewhat different pakistan question. [unintelligible] do you believe that's mr. weinstein is in some sort of al- qaeda custody? >> we do not have the ability to

confirm he is in al-qaeda custody. we deplore kidnapping. is totally detestable. -- it is totally detestable. he needs to be released immediately. in terms of the al-qaeda naxos, i cannot confirm it for you at this time. >> we do not have any indication to confirm those reports, no. >> [unintelligible] >> i will leave that to others. i will say over the years also worrying -- al-zawari taken to being videoed, showing how depraved al-qaeda and its leadership really is. >> has the u.s. offered any

assistance in terms of fbi, cia, u.s. military to the pakastanis, and have it rejected such an offer? >> i am not aware of any. >> i am not aware of any. this government would do all that we can to try to support the search for the individual. we could certainly consider the request for assistance. >> and for the border situation? because of the general's orders to retaliate, has the u.s.- afghan operation, have they been

scaled back along the border area as a result of this recent attack and the heightened tensions? >> i will not comment on or characterize our operations inside afghanistan. suffice it to say, our effort continues. we have important work to do inside afghanistan. a great deal of progress is being made. the insurgents have been under increasing pressure. that is a good thing. look, the enemy remains dangerous. they are capable of violence. as we have seen, regrettably, and recent months. as we see the transition -- as we've seen, regrettably, in recent months. as we see the transition to the national security force, this is a trend that is positive. we have seen it the second tranche occur, and i think that

is something worth noting. progress on the ground is being made. >> i do not think if i were in the taliban or the al-qaeda network i would be lollygagging around that area. >> [unintelligible] to make up for the loss of the supplies coming to pakistan. have there been provisions or a the increasing the flow of material out to other methods? >> there have not been -- these days just closed. general allen is assessing what his stocks and storer situation is, and they are trying to make sure alternatives are open.

they are specifying what those may be right now, but as i said before, we will make sure we will carry on the fight. >> the last would be 60 days to 90 days. is there a point at which timing becomes critical? >> again, a lot of it depends on what kind of materiale were talking about. i will not get into the specifics about it. based on the pace of usage, whatever is, whether it is fuel or ammunition -- they're doing the necessary paperwork to make sure the war continues. >> real-time for one more question. >> going back to the authorization of bill. be measured to crack down on

electronic parts in the -- the measure to crack down on electronic parts in the supply chain. what are you doing with legislative remedies? >> this is an issue that we are aware of. there have been parts that have been sold to us as new, but they have not exactly been new. some of them have been refurbished. there have been some parts of the supply chain. we're getting our arms around the problem, and we are making headway. i am unaware of any failure of system or loss of life attributable to these parts in the supply chain. i do not have a particular comment on this provision of legislation, but is something that is a priority for us, and we're continuing to work a. >> the industry shares the same

concern with us. this is the issue where we all stand to lose, so we all stand to gain from working hard data. >> -- from working hard at it. >> we're working very closely with our industrial partners, and we believe they are just as keenly aware of the problem as we are. last question, chuck? >> the senate has joined neihaus in -- has joined the house in making the chair of the national guard cheeps. is there anything that you are going to try to do? >> there are various officials to include the secretary, the chairman, as he is known draws the chief as well? >> the chief, also.

we understand the legislation that is moving through congress. i would now like to get into the particulars of what we're doing one where the other. at the end of the day as the provision becomes law, obviously, we will abide by a. apart from the issue of whether the head of the national guard should serve as part of the joint chiefs, but the national guard serves an extremely important role. we're doing what we can to sustain the skills of the guard. eventually, as we transition -- thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> it has been 90 days since my announcement that every american soldier would be out of the jungle. >> george mcgovern's pledged at the 1972 democratic convention came a decade after being one of the first senators to speak out publicly against the vietnam war. the senator from south dakota suffered a landslide defeat to president nixon, but his ground- breaking campaign changed american politics and the democratic party. from the mcgovern center for leadership in south dakota -- live at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> yesterday, republican presidential candidate herman

cain was a repeat -- was interviewed by the editorial board and staff of the new hampshire union leader. he currently faces allegations of an extramarital affair, but he calls those allegations "completely false." he also spoke about tax reform during this one-hour interview. >> pretty close to an hour. thank you for coming in. >> thank you. >> c-span has been kind enough to take most of these. they do not ask the questions, but we do. that way kids to a wider -- that way it gets to a wider audience. the federal reserve, you served on the regional board? >> regional board. >> i had a couple questions about. one was, what do you think people ought to understand about the federal reserve? there's a lot of talk about making it more open.

two, we were surprised by the secret loans that were making to the banks during the bailout. and three, what you think about them helping the europeans? >> that is not a couple -- that is three questions. first, the thing that i encourage people to understand about the federal reserve is that right now they have a dual mandate, and they should. they are supposed to contain and manage inflation in order to help keep the dollar sound. secondly, they also have a mandate, which was passed by congress back in the 1970's, to try to control unemployment. you cannot hit two targets with one arab. the only arab they have -- with one aero -- arrow.

the only arrow they have is the money supply. when i was on the federal weserve board in the 1990's, had -- we were not faced with the size of the national debt that they have to the. we were not faced with the international crises. unemployment was not a big deal. unemployment was right around 5%. so, we never had to try to hit two targets with one arrow. it was a moot point. in today's environment, it is not a midpoint. >> is the mandate, the first one that you mentioned, is that are written mandate, or does it come down to the understanding of the federal role? >> no, that is the written

mission of the federal reserve all the way back to 1913. >> and you, what was your role in accomplishing this mandate? >> my role was to provide anecdotal business input to what was going on in that region economically. i was in the restaurant business been. we had -- we had some bankers on their. we had farmers on their. people who worked in agriculture. the professional paid staff of the federal reserve would say, based on all their economic analysis, here is what the economy looks like, here is where we see it trending, here s inhe health of the bank' that particular federal reserve district, and on and on. and we would provide anecdotal evidence of what was happening in our businesses, our sector. i could talk about the restaurant sector. we saw restaurant sales for the

industry fall of. that was another piece of input in terms of what was happening with the economy. so, we provided anecdotal input, and then the president of that particular district, along with his chief economist would then recommend whether interest rates should be raised or lowered or the federal funds rate. the board would have to vote yea or nay, but usually after the analysis and discussion, that would make a recommendation that the board was comfortable with. so, my role was to provide a recommendation, be a part of the decision of providing a recommendation for that district, and that recommendation then goes to washington where the federal governor's, along with at the time alan greenspan, would consider all other a 11 districts, and then they had to

look at the national economy to make a decision. >> ron paul has made a big deal out of the secrecy aspect of the federal reserve. >> yes. >> i do not know if you experience any of that when you were onboard. given what has come out about the secret loans to banks, what is your position? >> openness was the order of the day, not secretiveness. >> hal was that manifest it? were there open meetings? was the public invited? >> no. the public was not invited to come to the meetings, but everything that went on in the meetings was published in various documents in various forms. we had a couple of books, i do not remember what they are now. anytime you wanted to visit the federal reserve to find out how it operated, the doors were open. they had a public relations department. they were open.

this latest revelation about the secrecy of the federal reserve, i was somewhat surprised. not only was i surprised they made secret loans. i was surprised at the magnitude of those funds. that came as a shock to me. the only thing i can say is we did not have those kinds of secretive policies. representative ron paul has said "end the fed." position is fix the fed. my position is, what are you going to replace it with? it is not set up for congress can politicize the federal reserve, and if you look to other countries around the world where the legislative body can influence monetary decisions, they have some of the most messed up economies. now we are not in exactly great shape, but they are the worst

when you allow monetary policy to become politicized. >> do you think the way the fed is established and operates, it is needed to keep a check on inflation? >> yes, i do. but i believe in going back to the singular focus. and congress should take more of an oversight role. they commissioned the federal reserve. you know, some people want to say a group of big banks got together and a couple of rich families got together and the federal reserve is outside the government. no, the united states congress basically established that. now another fact that confuses some people. who owns the fed? the member banks on the fed. and a large percentage of bubble all banks -- of all banks -- not all banks in the country -- banks' own at.

and joining the fed as a member bank and being chartered as a member bank of the federal reserve, there are certain requirements banks have to satisfy. and so, they are the ones who own it. the federal reserve has to keep its books like any other company. in order to take advantage of what we call the federal funds rate between banks and the fed, you have to be a chartered bank, abide by certain rules, certain criteria in order to be allowed. thousands and thousands and thousands of banks are members. and that is how we maintain the seamless flow of money across this country. >> riffe large then, the banks that own the fed -- writ large then, if the banks that own the fed, in large scale they are behind the fed decision to throw

in with other central banks across europe to offer the european banks at a low interest-rate u.s. dollars. we also read that american banks are very skittish. they are sitting on piles of money. they do not want to loan here in america, right, because of the uncertain business conditions. how was a businessman supposed to react when he sees the fed propping up europe with lower interest dollars? >> i do not like it. that is out of business man responds. here is what is not happening. the united states should not be the sole one to try to prevent the crisis in europe. just like in libya. >> you cannot bring libya -- >> yes, i can.

you cannot bring it up. i can bring it up. i know i have been be up about libya, but i know something about libya. in a situation relative to an analogy in libya, the president said we're going to leave from behind. we extended more in military resources, over $1 billion, more than any european country. they had the most to gain and the most to lose. in terms of their oil. most of it goes to europe. they should have taken more of a leadership role. they should have spent more money to support, you know, the folks that we were trying to support as an example. so, we ended up expanding -- but they had the most to win or lose. the refugee problem that was going to occur, they would have to deal with the. they should have wanted to try to help.

the same thing with this crisis. who has the most to win or lose? europe. if i were president, i would insist that the european countries stepped up to the plate before the united states would put more of its resources. we sell a lot of goods to european countries and vice versa, but i do not think we should be the primary savior of that country, because many of them have been more negligent than we have. relative to spending. we are at 100% of gdp, which is way to buy. we're in trouble. we are walking on eggshells. we need to figure out what we are doing. which is one reason why i wanted to run for the presidency,

because we're not getting, in my opinion, the right leadership on this issue. $15 trillion, and still rising, it is absurd. we are at 100%. some other countries are at 120%, 150%, some of them even at 200%. they have gone the way we're headed if we do not stop this trend. so, i would be consistent as president that our treasury department, which is the one that would have the authority to printing money to help them out, they need to step up. they need to take a bigger part in solving their problems rather than it just been perceived as, well, the united states is going to help us.

just because the recession that will occur over there will impact us. yes, it is. >> a lot of european leaders are saying they want the imf to back up loans to spain or italy. would you be willing to loan more money to the imf? >> if we got something for it, and i honestly do not know what that is or what that would be. if we got something for. i believe that is what the american people are saying. we just cannot be giving away money. we have to get something for a. >> i suppose wall street would say what we're getting immediately is a big strike -- big spike in the stock market yesterday. they supposedly on the central banks, including the fed, coming to the press to. >> that is a temporary, small

benefit in my opinion. temporary, small benefit. the stock market fluctuates at a presidential candidate coughs the wrong y. -- way. you did.sir, i i am going to let these guys get in most of the questions. i do want to talk about something i read in the " the wall street journal" about you last week. you said you wanted to become involved in politics when some guy, who happen to be black, yellow that you and some others going into a meeting with jack kemp -- yelled at you and some others going into a meeting with jack kemp. why can some people not understand you and others being a republican?

>> first, it made me feel angry. then it made me feel insulted, that i cannot think for myself. that is the feeling that i have. and john mackie, former football player for the colts, he was in that entourage that day. i remember when kemp called. he said -- "cain, cain?" he went up their and. he said, i need you to go with me to harlem. he said that he needed to bring some black friends with him. he was not crazy. we had the republicans cheering. "go kemp, go kemp."

they did not even want jack kemp to come to harlem and have a meeting in the middle of harlem. is called the intimidation factor. and that is the it is the same factor that causes them to intimidate a democrat or republican. is the intimidation factor. do not dare be a conservative, vote republican. through intimidation. not because of the liberal democrat generation has been successful. it has not been. it is the intimidation factor. that stuck with me for days. i had moved to nebraska and 1986. -- in 1986. it bothered me so much that he was suggesting that i could not

think for myself. i was leaving town and i got back home for the weekend. i knew i was going to have to stop at my voter registration office. i registered as an independent because i did not know anything about politics in the state. yes, that prevented me from voting in the primary election. but i was more of an independent and not so much tied to a party. but i kept thinking about this guy who yelled at me, "i must be an uncle tom." that is when i registered as a republican. i refused to be intimidated to being a member of a party when we live in the united states of america. >> could we get some of these miscellaneous issues out of the way before we go back to the

real issues? the atlanta journal constitution reports today that between -- according to your attorney, between october 22-november 18, there were 70 text messages that came to your phone from ginger white. according to the atlanta journal constitution, you were almost always responding to the messages from her. what was the nature of these text messages that she send you and what were you telling her in her 17 responses? were you telling her to leave me alone? >> herger text messages were asking for financial assistance because she was out of work, had trouble paying the bills, and i had known her as a friend. she was not the only friend that i helped in these tough economic times.

her message to me was, relating to needing money for rent or whatever the case may be, i do not remember the specifics, she did not have a job. they told me she was not able to get financial help from family and friends and that i was the only person that was a friend at the time. i understood friend that was in a position to help her. i am a soft-hearted person when it comes to that kind of stuff. i have held members of my church, members of my family. i know a lot of other people who have done the same thing. she was asking me to help her. sometimes, it was desperation. 47 of them were hurt asking me -- were her asking me.

i would respond, how much and what you doing to get a job, that kind of think. -- that kind of thing. if i decided to help her, i would let her know i would help her. >> did you help her? >> yes i did. >> how much money did you give her? >> because of my attorney and some things we are looking at, i cannot talk about that at this particular point. it was all financial assistance to try to help her with her bills. >> did you tell your wife your help in her? >> she did not know about it. that was the revelation and surprised that my wife found out about it when she went public with it. my wife now knows and i have explained it to her. my wife understands that i am a soft-hearted, giving person.

like a lot of men, i will not say most, if she had been just another man that i had helped, it would not have raised as much suspicion. my wife is comfortable with the explanation i told her regarding having to help her. >> was it after the fact? >> yes. >> why did you not tell your wife while it was going on? >> there are some things that -- it may appear now that why did i not tell her this before this was going on? you are right. in retrospect, it does not change what we are dealing with now. she did not know we were friends. >> until she came out. >> until she came out with the story. >> were there any threats in any of these text messages to you?

>> i had absolutely no threats. there was not any indication that it might be some black male or something like that. i thought he was a friend. end of story. >> every successful, well-known man's nightmare, at something like this would happen. given what had been reported about her financial situation and history going back many years, how did you come across this woman? how did you crossed paths? >> we met years ago. i would really like to talk about the economy, energy, and those kinds of things. we met years ago at a conference where she was one of the organizers and i was the keynote speaker. we struck up a strong friendship then because she was

asking me about her job, her career. i am open to talking to people if they ask me about decisions that are trying to make. i was the keynote speaker at a conference in louisville, ky. that is already out there. and because i did not have an entourage, she had my contact information. she stayed in touch. that is how it came about. >> if you were satisfied with your kind responses to your requests -- to her requests for money, why do you suppose she came out out of the blue and made statements and allegations that anyone would have to know would be extremely damaging to you? do you know why she did? did she tell you?

why do think he did it? >> i do not know for sure. i do not know why. but i have a very strong speculation. someone offered her a lot of money. i was helping her with month-to- month bills and expenses. somebody -- this is speculation only, i have no proof -- offered her a lot of money. one of my objectives is to clear my name. and my reputation. >> and mr. kane, should you have walked before you ran? you are a successful radio guy in atlanta. i do not think a lot of people know on the campaign trail. should you have saw public office at a lower level before going into this maelstrom? i do not know if it is a

surprise or chagrin or shock is the right word, but you have been through the wood chipper. in retrospect, would it have been smarter for you to look for a lower office to get the experience, get your footing, get the right staff before you went for the whole enchilada? >> this may surprise you -- no. for two reasons. i spent most of my career climbing the corporate ladder. at 65, i did not have time to climb the political ladder. >> look at newt gingrich, he is 68. >> i know life expectancy is going up, but i may not be the average.

it relates to -- just how much time did i think i have left? secondly, my objective was to try and have as big an impact on helping to solve america's problems as i could. the radio show was having an impact in the greater atlanta area because it was very successful. >> how long were you on? >> i was on five years, two years as a full-time substitute for a syndicated show with a little over 250 stations he is syndicated on and i had a weekend show. for three years prior to running office, i had a full-time, five hours per week, in one hour per night, herman cain radio show. it forced me to talk about the issues every night with my callers. doing that forced me to know way more about the problems this

country has faced than i ever wanted to know. that was one of the things that cause me to be more and more frustrated with the lack of leadership, the lack of solid decisions as it relates to things like the economy and. i know that people do have run for office before me talked about simplifying the tax code. i say, why do we not just throw it out? put up a new structure. that is what i put in my 9-9-9 plan. looking at the situation, i was saying, what is the most effective position i could go after? even though it is a long shot, that i could impact driving solutions relative to national debate and be in the position. it was those factors that caused me to say, why not? >> before all this stuff hit the

fan, not just the sexual allegations, but other things, you were zooming up in the polls. you have the bully pulpit to do that kind of thing. i do not know where all of this leaves you going to court. your 9-9-9 plan, you do know about new hampshire? they must have told you about it in. we do not have taxes. >> you have federal income taxes. this replaces federal income taxes. >> which part of it? the sales tax? >> de rigueur is all of the federal income taxes, including the federal income tax. >> week 80 federal income tax, but not stay -- but not sales tax. >> you are giving us a new tax. >> is going to replace five taxes that you are paying now. >> the rate for the federal tax is going to be reduced to the extent it is going to be, even

with new hampshire people now having to pay the national, it will be less. >> for some people it will be less. by adding in the sales tax fees -- i know you do not like taxes -- this is on top of and it is a replacement. >> i would have to have my tax guide argue with your analysis. as an independent, you could not vote in the primaries. you know about independence in the primaries? >> no. >> they get to vote. you get to pitch your vote not only to republicans, but like- minded republicans -- not like- minded independencts. independent is the largest registration in new hampshire. if that man or woman goes in and

says, give me a republican ballot. they vote and they can come out and change back to being an independent. >> the point i'm trying to drive home is, if you look at your federal income tax and your payroll tax combined, 999 replaces that. for most people, it will go down a. it is a sales tax, but not a state sales tax. what's a guy is making $70,000 per year and is paying half of the payroll tax. and he is paying the federal income tax. what would that be that he is paying? >> i went through the calculations for $50,000 and they came out about $1,000 less

in taxes if you walk through the calculations. >> that is $1,000 -- with your 9-9-9? >> yes. it went down by about $1,000 to $1,100. >> the have any evidence that would cause you to want to tweet this at all? >> is a complete plan. it is not a modification of the current tax code. that is what makes it so powerful. >> one part of it is you would do away with home exemptions. >> correct. >> i have read criticism of that being that while that might be a good bowl over a longer term, you intend to do it all at once, in one year. >> when you throw out the tax

code, that is step one. you not only throw out that home exemption, you throw out all of the loopholes for everybody. all the loopholes are gone. 9-9-9 treat everyone the same. to want to put in the home exemption does not make sense. >> not to put it in, but how you ratchet it back. to do it all at once -- >> that is because i am a bold thinker and i propose bold solutions because we have some bold crises that we face. i know that is risky. but that is my nature. what is the problem? how do we best fix the problem? i will take on the challenge of trying to spell the solution. >> i want to ask you a question about your business acumen. you have said, in some of the debates, 1-minute answers like,

is it cold or pepsi? you rely on your business acumen where you do not know the answer but you have the best staff, you would rely on the military for the answers. the thing you have been well- served by your campaign staff that you selected based on some of the problems that you have run into? >> i believe i have. i believe that we have. let's take one example. some of the political consultants would say, we did not handle this very well. we did not handle the last one and we did not handle the first one, the second one. we did not handle it well. >> the green bay packers game comes to mind. >> i believe that we did, for the following reasons. you have to look at these individuals -- the very first

one that broke, we were tipped off by politico, that they were going to do a story. >> that is part of it. but there have been other things besides the sexual harassment things. >> we had to make a separate decision on each of them. there is no one size fits all when you get bombarded with this stuff. what i want to illustrate is, in that particular case, they told us there were more to write a story. we did not know what was going to be in it. as a businessman, you do not respond to stop when you do not know what is going to be in it. i made a decision to wait until it hits. we knew there were going to write something. >> cannot ask you some specific questions predicted that asking

specific questions about sexual harassment? >> note. they did not say anything about who he was, something about something is going to hit and it is one to be involving sexual harassment charges or something like that. i said, until we know what we are responding to, it does not make sense to go out and be on the defense. when it came out, rather than take two or three days, so i could get trapped -- prepped, i was ready to go out and say what i knew on day one. i got criticized because of nuances in the language. i would do it all over again. that is my style. to wait two or three days and allow the new cycle to come to all of the conclusions that they want to come to even though i may not have articulated the difference between a settlement and an agreement right away, in the morning, i said, what

settlement? to me, settlement means legal settlement. in business, it is totally different. if this happened 14-15 years ago, i did not wake up that morning about exactly what happened in my mind 14 or 15 years ago. i just know that those charges were found baseless. the fact that the word sediment was used -- i said, that was no settlement. by the end of the day, i was saying it was an agreement. some people said, you change your story. no i did not. i remembered specifically, as the day went on, that it was an agreement between that particular employee and the restaurant association. >> it is unfortunate that it continues to dominate the conversation. the thing you wanted to get into the race for, to have a bold plan relative to business facing the country, gets taken aside.

>> and yes. let me give one more quick example. when the lady that said that she work with me got involved with gloria allred, that was another situation. as soon as i saw who it was, i told her, i told my staff, i do not know were, i do not remember her name or voice. she did it on a monday. we were in san francisco, where i had to give a speech. we did bring in some outside people to talk about it and help us analyze it. i said, we are going to do a press conference the next day. i am not afraid to go in front of the press because i did not have anything to hide. again, we were criticized for not handling it perfectly. i do not know what that means. >> just to follow up, to clarify, i was thankful to be on

one of the few reporters on your call the other day to your staff. i appreciate that. you talked about reassessment. it left me with the distinct impression that one of the options you are looking at was to get out of the race, based on all of this. mr. gordon made -- he diminished that possibility in sending me an e-mail and talking to some of the other media, saying "we are full speed ahead. people are looking too much into this. we are looking at interviews we do and how we allocate resources." is getting out of this race, for better or worse, fairly or unfairly, one of the options that you are assessing right now? >> yes. it is an option. what j. d. was trying to say, and i concur, we are not slowing

down. we are keeping all the commitments and reassessing several factors. getting out is an option to. that just meant that we were not going to put the brakes on until we made a decision. that is what we are assessing. family, supporters, fund- raisers, and our strategy. >> you had a big meeting last night downtown with your supporters. >> the supporters are extremely supportive. >> if your wife asks you to get out, are you out? >> yes, but my wife would not ask me to get out. my wife would not ask me to get out. i would make a decision based upon how all of this stuff has affected her. i will put her first. but she is not the type to say,

"you ought to get out." >> besides family considerations, what other factors would be so dire that you would consider over the next week, by next week we should know what your decision is. >> yes. you will know by next week. >> you have something in atlanta. a public appearance. >> the grand opening of our georgia headquarters on saturday. it would be saturday. do not try to can me down. i do have my own timetable. i do have my own timetable. >> what other factors could force you out of this race? >> family is number one -- i was

one to answer it, but you kept rephrasing the question. the second critical factor would be if financial backers started to not want to contribute because, and i have heard this from some people, they see this cloud not going away. i have not been convicted of anything other than in the court of public opinion, but the media drives the court of public opinion. within the last three weeks, i have been accused of three different situations. every time a new story comes on tv, it mentions sexual harassment charges. that is inaccurate. they were found baseless. i call them false accusations. they were false. there were not proven. every time they are called

sexual harassment charges, that keeps saying to the people, sexual-harassment. rather than false allegations. some people might say i cannot get the nomination with this cloud so they will stop giving. >> are they concerned about your situation or should they look at some of the other candidates, such as mitt romney or newt gingrich, who are being accused and have been challenged and have been on different sides of issues at different points in their lives. >> my concern is my situation. quite frankly, one of the things i have learned in this whole thing is that running for president is -- it has become a very dirty game. it is a dirty game. there are three audiences that

were out there. -- that work out there. you have the media class -- not all people in the media are bad. i am not saying that. some are good and some are truly professional. i mean that. but there are some that are truly not professional. those that loved to play gotcha politics. in the media plans. that is a combination of traditional, mainstream, cable, print, internet. that breaks down in a whole lot of different categories. there is a lot of it on the internet. liberal sites that have not liked me from the beginning because i was conservative, they have not let up. so you have the media clash. second, you have the political class. these are people who have held public office or are in public

office now. the politico class -- sometimes the establishment is part of that. the republican establishment, the democratic establishment. the third audience is weak, the people. -- we, the people. i have gotten three totally different responses from those audiences. the media class continues to want to talk about the cloud. the establishment says it is a distraction to the party. it is. the establishment says you cannot get the nomination because of a cloud. maybe, but that is the way they think. the people are the ones who are saying, we love your solutions, your optimism, do not drop out if that is an option. and i will admit, that is obviously an option.

my point is, one part of the assessment is, what will drive it going forward? >> here is a state where you can -- nothing is perfect, but here is a state where you can get directly to the people. you spent some time here. in terms of getting out and having one-on-one in town halls -- >> i reject the notion -- >> in this coming month, are you going to try to work past the other classes and go directly to the people? >> that has been our approach all along. which is why i believe that we are resonating, i am resonating. which is why i started to go up in the polls. >> anybody from the political class for your fellow candidates call you to commiserate or say hang in there or atta boy?

>> i did talk with one other person who shall remain nameless. we were talking about some other substances issues -- some other substantive issues and this particular individual gave me some words of encouragement. >> multiple responses to these allegations as things unfolded. at one coin, your campaign manager said that the perry campaign was behind the initial report. the other day, you said, "they are attacking my character, reputation, and name to bring me down." who is day? >> i was not specifically referring to the perry campaign. >> you have your theories about ms. white.

hoodie think is behind this? >> we do not know. >> you have any ideas? >> i do. there is a network of people, i believe, who would not like to see me challenge president barack obama as the republican nominee. >> you think they are democrats? " i believe some of them are democrats and some of them are republicans. i do not fit the traditional paradigms. it is not just one side of the aisle. i happen to believe that there is a tendency on both sides of the aisles. >> i want to ask you another foreign policy question. there was voting in egypt yesterday. a result of the arab spring, the overthrow of mubarak. the biggest winner was the islamic brotherhood, in particular, an extremely

conservative sect of the islamic brotherhood. where do you see that as far as the united states goes and dealing with the mideast? >> is very dangerous for israel because the general population in egypt, they do not like is rile -- israel. mubarak was keeping things calm. not allowing them to be abused and taken advantage of. it is a dangerous situation relative to the relationship that will have going forward with egypt. which means we have got to reevaluate our relationship with egypt. we of the underwriting -- we have been providing several billion dollars' worth of aid to egypt, primarily because mubarak

was maintaining calm between egypt and israel. he is out. now we do not know what the situation is. if i were president, i would make it clear that if they do not want to honor the relationship with israel that they have had in the past, we are not going to provide the aid that we have provided. you cannot have it both ways. it comes down to economic influence her it >> how would you deal with this blockade of the afghani border by the pakistan government? >> first, you need to make sure you know the facts. there are doing an investigation to determine the facts. that is where i start.

we are not sure, based on public records show that are being read, that the military was not provoked. some early reports said it could have been provoked. that has got to be part of the whole analysis of, where do we go from here? until we know more about the situation, i do think it is unfortunate that they are going to block a lot of supplies going into afghanistan. that is going to create some different pressures on the military in terms of how they will survive. they will figure out a way. they will figure out a way to survive. obviously, if they cannot bring it through pakistan to get it to afghanistan, that will put pressure is on our men and women over there who are trying to fight. in blacks and whites president biden said that he had -- vice

president biden said he does not believe the attack was orchestrated. what you believe was behind that attack and how would president cain respond to it? >> and that is one of those hypothetical hypothetical with too many unknowns. we know that iran is not our friend. they are our enemy. we know that. the british are friends. until we know all of the facts associated with it along with what intelligence we have, it gets back to knowing the facts before we say what we would do. cots we are ready freezing iranian bank and business assets. >> i would support that. they know enough information to be confident that that is an action that would take. >> you would support the action or do the same? >> and both. after we did our own analysis.

if the british and europeans have done an analysis and come to a conclusion and are ready to impose sanctions, that is great. i want to make sure that we were not just following suit, that we did our own analysis and came to that conclusion. ift's the last question -- mr. cain at last thoughts that we could pass on to the c-span audience and our readers as to why you are the man for the job. >> america has become a nation of crises. i, along with millions of americans, have recognized these crises. we have a national security crisis. look at the things we have talked about. a lot of things are not clear. my approach and philosophy is an

extension of the reagan philosophy, peace through strength and clarity. we lack clarity and a lot of our relationships around the world. peace is our mission. it always has been. the strength comes from military strength, economic strength, and moral strength. as you said, we talked about our relationship with libya and the united states comes down to economic strength. as long as our economy is not growing, we are not willing to have dollars to strengthen our military. to try to help keep peace in parts of the world offering incentives, for lack of a better word. we have a national security crisis, in our opinion. everything is too fragile. our military is weaker.

we have the lowest number of ships and powerfully today since 1915. the world is not safer. we have an economic crisis. 14 million people are out of work. anemic growth. it is projected for this year it will be 1.5%. china is growing at double- digit. people cannot find jobs. businesses are in a state of survive, not in a state of growth. we have an energy crisis. we are too dependent on foreign oil. we have the resources to become energy independent. those things alone, and the fact that i recognize those and the fact that output these solutions on the table is why i am the man.

>> thank you for coming in. >> thank you. you guys were very civilized. [laughter] >> that is all i ask for. [laughter] >> thank you. that is great. " that was just a tiny issue, which is why we could not. i am glad we got a chance to do this. and 9% issue -- a 9% increase in

health-care costs. quest do not be like perry, though. [laughter] >> what was it? relative to the gdp. i do not remember the exact time frame of the statistics, but national debt has gone up more than 9%, if you depend on how foreign banks are going. question to not forget my christmas present. >> i got that. thanks a lot.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this discussion from herman cain is from yesterday in new hampshire. tomorrow he will make an announcement on the future of this campaign. he has not disclose whether or not he is planning to drop out of the race. you is small -- his remarks tomorrow at noon on c-span. our coverage continues with newt gingrich. he spoke at the republican party fund-raiser dinner in johnston, iowa. >> thank you all for being here this evening. introducing newt gingrich tonight is a pleasure. newt gingrich is a uniter. this is a time when america needs to work together, probably more than ever before, in an increasingly dangerous world.

in congress in the 1990's, he was a uniter on welfare reform, working on details of the legislation so president clinton could sign it into law. he was instrumental in bringing congress together on the first tax cut in 16 years. that tax cut was key in growing 11 million new jobs. and reducing unemployment from 5.6% to 4.2%. what he worked on in the 1990's and the commons that resulted are proof that the problems we have today are temporary as long as we apply the correct solutions. during the recent debates, he has proven to be a uniter again always finding something good to highlight in the other candidates in proposals or their past accomplishments. his approach has had a real impact in the most recent debate and the tone under which

they were conducted. finally, and this may be the most important accomplishment in this entire cycle, he has worked hard to address the challenges he faced in his own personal life. we already seen his success when just about four weeks ago, at the iowa fate and freedom coalition dinner, with all hundred people in attendance, he received two standing ovations during only a 10 minute speech. tonight, we have a room filled with social moderates and conservatives as another example of the progress of our party is making with an experienced and tested uniter inspiring us. newt gingrich has been through a lot to get to this point. he still had our best interests at heart and those of our nation. speaking for all of us at the polk county republican party, we

are thrilled to have him here tonight. we thank all of you for being here. ladies and gentlemen, i invite you to stand and join me in welcoming this genuine statesman back to iowa. newt gingrich! [applause] >> thank you.

thank you all. thank you, kevin, for that remarkable introduction. i think you captured exactly what i've been trying to do. i hope that by showing up this evening, for this extraordinary turnout that i have finally made daryl happy. [laughter] he told me early on that i had to come do it. it is an old personal friend of mine. [applause] i like coming back to iowa for many reasons. my wife went to college here and our national campaign chairman is from here. i have many ties here. in terms of my candidacy, i like coming here because i like coming to a state where you could have been out of office for a while, you could have been a little older, you could

return and win the governorship. [laughter] i was]terry's birthday party the other night and i told him what an inspiration to me he was. when you watch the budget deal they got compared to what washington has been like, we could use a lot more of him and a lot less obama in this country. [applause] i am always glad to come back to the state of shock grassley -- chuck grassley. he was the only person that voted with in 1984 for gasahol. that was ethanol when ronald

reagan signed into law. it is great to be back. i have to confess that while i got aping for a wave, we tsunami. what should i talk about tonight? i want to give you a talk that builds off of kevin's introduction. i want to talk about the possibility that we have to rebuild the america that we love. we are a mess. we are a mess in washington, economically, ms with radical judges, you can go down the list. i think is wrong to focus primarily on the ms. we have been here before -- in 1979 and 1980, jimmy carter got us to 13% inflation, 22% interest rates, 10.8%

unemployment, the soviet invasion of afghanistan, 444 days of a hostage crisis. finally, in despair, carter gave a famous speech in which he said everything is going to be a lot worse, but at least we can share the misery equally. [laughter] i did not make that up. ronald reagan came along and a theme you may hear next year, he said, "if your brother-inlaw is unemployed, it is called a recession. if you are unemployed, it is called a depression for it if jimmy carter is unemployed, it is called a recovery." [laughter] [applause] so i want to predict to you tonight that the economic

recovery will begin late on election night when the country realizes that barack obama is going back to chicago and that the republicans have won control of the senate and. [applause] literally that evening, investment decisions, job creation decisions, company- launching decisions, will be changing in the light of what is going on. for that to happen, we have to have a team campaign. as your state chairman knows, i am totally committed to a team campaign. i have told the governor that and you can count on me as the nominee being back here helping in the fall. in my whole career has been

spent like that. in 1980, and was the first person to organize a capitol steps event with gov. ronald reagan and all of the house and senate candidates. in 1984, we organized a contract with america and had 350 candidates nationwide running as a team. in 2010, working with american solutions, which helped organize efforts across the country, including here. the great victory was not the u.s. house, but we take up 680 state legislative seats that night and another 25 when the democrats switched. today, we have the largest number of state legislators since 1925. [applause] we need to have a team effort next year. we need to put a team together and win at 18. i have begun on my website to outline the first stages of a

21st century contract with america to indicate where the team might go. i want to spend a few minutes tonight and talk about why we're doing all of this. this is just not about -- this is not just about petty politics or so we can have a victory party. it is because we have a vision of america as a country that we love, that we feel is, at its core, endangered by policies and we want to set the country back on the right track. why is that worth doing? sometimes we need to stop and revisit what this is all about. this has been, for 225 years, the most successful society in the history of the world. it is extraordinary. you can come from anywhere on the planet and you arrive here and become absorber, you become an american career you quit

fighting over the past and start building the future. people who migrate here from serbia and bosnia who would have killed each other and now their kids are on the same soccer team were the same basketball team were the same baseball team. they are in business together, trying to create wealth, because they are americans. people learn to be americans faster than you would have thought possible. but what is this thing and how do we rebuild it? this is far more than incidental data about the debt or the unemployment or whenever you want to say that the news media focus is on. this is the core argument we have with barack obama. he is legitimately a radical. he believes in a world in which the classic america has disappeared. he believes in a world in which the united nations is more important than the united states congress. he believes in a world of

international law rather than the u.s. constitution. we will have an opportunity to have a discussion with him next year. let's assume, for a few minutes, that we have one. what would happen? what kind of country would we create? it starts with first principles. i want you to understand that. i began at lincoln did, he said, on his way to his inauguration, when he stopped in philadelphia in february of 1861, he gave a speech at independence hall. he said, he did not know of a single major part of his political beliefs that did not come from the declaration of independence. lincoln was born very core. he had 1.5 years of formal education. he taught himself. he knew that in any other

country in the world, he would have had a limited future. but in america, he had an unlimited future. he treasured -- he is the man that brings back to the center of our life the declaration of independence. why is this important? the founding document, it is the base of everything. what does it say? it says we owe these truths to be self evident, not situation ethics, not theoretical philosophy. the founding fathers were seriously, desperately trying to understand the truth of self- government. of who we are and who we can be. that all men are created equal. and yes, there would have all said to you, of course it is inadequate at the present time, of course it does not recognize the role of women, of course it does not fully recognize other

problems. but as an aspiration towards which the country should move, it is the boldest, most radical statement in history. this was written in a time of kings, members, czars, dictators. they went on to say, where do our rights start? we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. if, with your help, i end up as president of the united states, i will dedicate eight years to making those were real. -- those words real. [applause] what does that mean?

rebuilding the america we love by making the declaration real? let's go back and look at the words. one of the reasons the founding fathers deeply dislike big government is that it fundamentally violated the principle that we are all equal. f you read gordon would's tremendous books on the american revolution, it makes quite clear that the americans are all part of a critique of the british monarchy. they all believe the following things -- the government is always corrupt. not because people bought each other -- because people bride each other, but because decisions are made to pay all local political interests at the cost of the general good. might i say the word "solyndra" as an example. [laughter] the longer i've thought about

the possibility that i have to serve, the more i realize that we have to clean up congress as much as we have to clean up the executive branch. [applause] and i have also come to realize that we need an american campaign, not a republican campaign and we need to be open to every person of every background who shares our commitment. [applause] you and i know that is going to make some of our friends very uncomfortable. but i think if we truly want to rebuild america, we have to be prepared to make some of our friends very uncomfortable. [applause] in that context, the founding fathers go on to say, "we are

endowed by our creator." this is the heart of the american argument. where do our rights come from? the founding fathers unanimously agreed god endows each one of you personally. which means you are personally sovereign. notice it says that the rights are unalienable. that means no judge, no bureaucrats, no politician can take away your rights. this is the most radical statement in political history. it says we're centering sovereignty on you. which is why you are a citizen. you are not a subject. in europe, there were subjects. it is this wonderful story of, frankly, -- wonderful story of franklin, who goes to europe.

he leaves boston at 13 to go to his uncle at philadelphia, learned how to become a printer, becomes a successful businessman, a great writer, writes a brilliant almanac and autobiography, becomes a scientist -- the only american, i believe, admitted to the royal academy of science, a world- renowned scientist who discovered electricity, discovered the lightning rod, develops the franklin stove, is the first postmaster general of the united states, an amazing, energetic person. he is hired by pennsylvania to go to london. and to represent the colony. as gordon wood road, "he left

america and englishmen the day after years of living in london and realizing that the aristocracy would never accept it, no matter how rich, how brilliant, how personable, he would never be accepted. he came back to america and american. thatnot subjects, and that is wy all of the arrogance of western bureaucrats is anti-american at its core and has to be fundamentally uprooted and replaced by people who understand that they are servants of the american people. we are not servants of the government. [applause] part of what coming back into public life was the ninth circuit decision in 2002 that

one nation under god as part of the pledge of allegiance was unconstitutional. my conclusion was that if we had got into a point -- remember, this is a phrase that lincoln rights in hand, sitting on the day as, looking out over the first national military cemetery at gettysburg -- and i concluded that if we have judges so radical and anti-american that they believe even the reference to one nation under god is unconstitutional, the time has come to draw a line in the sand. i wrote a paper on judicial reform, and i can promise you that one of the first? i will propose to congress will be to close -- first acts i will propose to congress will be to close the office of judge barry in san francisco who is a uniquely bigoted judge who said

that not only could students not pray, they could not use the words benediction or indication. they could not ask the audience to stand. they could not reference god. they could not ask for a moment of silence, and if any of these were violated, he would put the offenders in jail. we do not have to tolerate anti- religious judges who seek to impose in this country a fundamental violation of the declaration. how you explain that we are endowed by our creator if it becomes illegal to refer to the creator? if you think i exaggerate, look at schools today and what they do not teach. look at the amount of american history they refuse to talk about. look at the bias built into the african american community against american history, against the founding fathers, against our institutions.

among these inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. i want to take a minute to talk about the last one, because i think it is a key example of how big the change is if we are going to seriously rebuild the america we love. first of all, the term "pursuit of happiness," in the scottish indictment where it came from, actually references -- enlightenment that it came from, actually references of virtue. it does not reference hedonism. the concept in that generation was that true happiness came from virtue. passionate.ery hal i wrote a small book about it that got turned into a movie. if you look at the founding fathers, it is amazing. they believed people who could

not be self disciplined did not deserve to be free. jefferson wrote that people who want to be both ignorant and possible.not peo religion, morality and knowledge being important, being vital. schools are important and they set up public schools. but notice the order. they really wanted us to understand how to live the good life, not how to live are rich life. they felt it in their bones. what does that mean? again, i'm warning you, in case you decide you want to support me. in means i have a passionate dedication to the work ethic. i think we need to free and still the work ethic. -- we in still -- re-instill the

work ethic. the president the other day said the american people have grown lazy. that is the jimmy carter system. once it starts to fail, someone else must have done it. after all, how could he have done it? it is fascinating to watch liberals tried to avoid reality. and let me say this the two levels, because the president's comment on laziness is really worth our thinking about at great length. it fits into the concern of the new york times for inequality. i would argue that the rise of bureaucracy has encourage laziness and has crippled the poor. we've created environments where students are sent to schools whose only function is to pay off the union.

i would cite los angeles unified as the burden of proof. i have been attacked because i suggested that we find ways for poor children to work. if you live in a neighborhood where no one goes to work, were you have nobody knew who can teach you how to work, the number one thing you need to learn is how to show up. and any need to learn that there is a connection between showing up and money. [laughter] and yet the entire liberal effort -- i had got into this 20 years ago when liberals were contemptuous of what they described of hamburger flipping jobs. i like to study mcdonald's because i like to study institutions that succeed. just like i'm a fan of walmart. mcdonald's has taught more people to show up for work than

any other institution in america. it is right that when you're young and you show up and flip hamburgers for a while, you do not make a lot of money. but you could rise. you could one day own mcdonald's. you could own another company. if you look at the number of business leaders to be started like that, it is amazing. when i talk to first-generation millionaires and billionaires, they all started young. the other day i got an e-mail from my granddaughter maggie, who is now 12. she said, i am writing to you on my ipad. i said, how did you get an ipad? she said, i have saved all of my money for eight months, and i bought it. [applause] i wrote my daughter and she wrote back how proud she was. maggie would not buy anything

else, no candy, no movies. she had a goal and she was going to get to that goal. that is what you want the poorest children in america to learn. that is what i was trying to say the other day when i said that we should contemplate very seriously that the poorest children in the poorest neighborhoods ought to have part-time jobs in the schools they go to. i was promptly attacked that i want to trap the poor as janitors. then i was told the janitors to dangerous, hard work. well, the master janitor probably ought to do the dangerous, hard work, but i will tell you, personally, i believe that kids could mop the floor and clean out the bathroom and get paid for it and it would be ok. [applause] and candidly, this is one of the great fears of liberalism. if they learned that at the end of the week they got money for doing work, they might want to

do more work, in which case they would get more money, and then they would cease to be poor, and then who would rich liberals worry about? [laughter] you have to think about this whole model. i want to say two things in closing about this concept of rebuilding the america we love. bringrst is, i'm going to a lot of ideas to the table. some are going to be workable. some are not. i am going to ask all of you to bring ideas to the table. what we know today is that the old order and working. therefore, we ought to have the courage to the american people. the wright brothers decided they were fascinated with flying. they had no academic degrees. they got no government grants. they built their own wind tunnel. they studied birds.

and the one thing they did with the government was to ask the weather service where in america had continues updraft, which turn that to the kitty hawk. the only way you could get there was by train, so in the early summer, they would put a lot of wood on the train and go down to kitty hawk and build an airplane. they did this for three years in a row. they always took extra would, because they knew something very profound. they did not know how to fly. therefore, they were going to crash the plane. [laughter] they would get up in the morning, and they would go out and have a cup of coffee, and then they would launch the plane and it would crash. and they would fix it, and they would talk about, what do we think went wrong, and they would practice some more. they did this for three years.

in december of 1903, it flew. the distance it flew was shorter than the wingspan of a boeing 747. it never got high enough to get over the fuselage of a boeing 747, and one brother ran along next to it to keep it from flipping over. but it live. -- flu. -- flew. four years later, they flail an airplane around the island of manhattan and a million and a half people saw it. why am i telling this story? because i am asking you to embark with me on a voyage of invention, discovery, to be as bold and courageous as the wright brothers, to reach out in education, in health, and immigration, in national security, in job creation, in

every aspect of american life, to rebuild this extraordinary country. i can i guarantee success. as churchill said that the darkest moment of british history, i can promise you blood, sweat, toil and tears. i can promise you i will do everything i can to rebuild this country for my grandchildren. i also want to say to you, i will not ask a single one of you to be forming -- for me. because the annual the outcome and go home, and say i sure hope new to fix it. -- because then you will vote, go home, and say i sure hope newt fixes it. what i will ask is for you to be with me, so that side-by-side

for eight years we remind the congress why we hired them. also, because i want you to remind me. i want to set up a social network that allows you to say, that is not working. here is a better idea. the world has changed, you had better switch gears. if we implement the 10th amendment and reduce the size of government in washington, we have to grow citizenship back home. i want to be able to turn to you and say, if you are with me, i need you to do this. this is the most important election, i believe, in our lifetime. if obama is reelected and he comes to believe that his radicalism was vindicated despite the economy, despite the deficit, despite everything, i cannot imagine what his second term would be like. this is really a big deal. i want to say one last thing. if i am your nominee, with your

help, i will challenge the president to 73-hour lincoln- douglas style debates -- seven, three-hour, lincoln-douglas style debates with a timekeeper and a moderator. -- no moderator. [applause] to be fair, i will agree that he can use a teleprompter. [laughter] after all, if you had to defend obama care, wouldn't you want a teleprompter? now, some of our friends think he will not agree. i think there are three reasons he will agree. first, he announced in february of 2007 in springfield quoting

lincoln. second, just pure ego. how does a columbia, harvard law graduate, editor of the law review, greatest orator in the democratic party, look in the mirror and say he is afraid to stay on the same platform with a west georgia college professor? third, as many of you know, i have studied history, and unlike the president i have studied american history. [laughter] [applause] abraham lincoln in 1858 had been out of office for 10 years. he only served one term in congress, a number of terms in the state legislature. went back home and spent 10 years out of office. when he announced his intention

to run for president, he said there are 105 days left, let's debate every day. douglas said, i do not think so. the next several days, wherever douglas when, lincoln arrived the next day and read but did everything he said. the newspaper coverage was always lincoln's rebuttal. there were nine congressional districts. douglas agreed to do seven. what is the modern parallel? if you help me become the nominee, in my exceptions speech in tampa, if the president has not yet agreed, i will announce that as of that evening the white house will be my schedule, and wherever the president goes, i will show up four hours later and respond to his speech. [applause]

just remember, with your help, we will rebuild the country we love, but only if we come in the american people, are willing to do it. thank you, good luck and god bless you. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> if you would just give us a moment here, we have a couple of housekeeping things we would like to address. first of all, we are having a book signing after our dinner this evening, and newt gingrich will be outside. we would like to have everyone exit through this door over here if they would, please. number two, there are some people i would like to think before we leave. you cannot do these things without support at home. i want to thank my wife, if you would stand up. we have three boys under 5, and

she is doing so much every day to make me free for this. i want to thank carol and karen. and i want to thank all of our volunteers, because our volunteers are amazing. we're asking the press to hold where they are. we're going to ask everyone to renew their membership. in january. we're going to be sending those out. we're not finished here, folks. we are going to win polk county. we're going to deny obama the electoral votes for iowa. we want to elect tom laid them and a third republican supervisor -- latham and the third republican supervisor so that we can get down property taxes in this county. in closing, be sure to attend

your caucus and please turn out for our general election next november. thank you for your help tonight. i cannot be more proud to work with people of this caliber. we're working days, nights and weekends to make things right for all of you. thank you and goodnight.

>> they say this is hot. is this feeding straight india? don't you guys have enough stuff after one day? surely you can get a microphone. can you get me from there? i am highly confused now. i cannot figure this out. i have no idea what we're doing. do you want to take charge? what are we doing? oh, that is right. all right.

it is the media what? of, like an availability. this is the stuff marcy hates. you are starting to be serious. well, i am only confident if the people of iowa and new hampshire and south carolina and florida decide that it is right, but i am encouraged by tonight and i am encouraged by what we are seeing. i think that ultimately the american people have to decide, but certainly, they seem to be favoring substance and somebody who is positive, and somebody who's only upon and is barack obama. i feel encouraged. >> you have talked a lot about children working. do you have an age that you would start that? >> i think it depends on what they would end of doing.

think about your relatives. at what point is it ok to do babysitting? at what point, if you're good at software -- there are 12 and 13- year-old right now creating their own companies, doing their own blogs. again, i'm not talking about going to an 19th century time and situation, but i once did a program called earning by learning, where i took money i made at speeches and would pay kids to read books. they got two dollars per bug. one girl who read 83 books in one summer earned the money to buy her back-to-school books. this was in georgia. i am looking for ways to say to people, how do we get them engaged in learning, that effort can lead to reward and that you have a better future if you do things? i am open to how we experiment with it.

i think the country has to decide and different states might to a different thing, different cities might to a different thing. some of it could be done in the private sector by boys and girls clubs. we're trying to create a mind set by saying that the best way to get poor children to rise is to help them early on learned the work ethic and connect them to earning money so that they understand why it is to their advantage to be part of the world of work. >> are you going to have the money to compete? >> i think we're going to have enough money. we will never have as much as mitt romney, but we will have a sufficiency to be very, very competitive. >> do you feel prepared for this?

>> this is disorienting. this is such a rapid change that we are having to rethink our own internal operations right now and where we are. i would not have given the speech two weeks ago because it would not have seemed to make sense for this guy who was an underdog to be up here talking about the future, but the fact is, given where we are, i think this is the right space to start saying to people, this is what making bridge presidency would look like. this is how different it would be -- this is what aking rich -- what canute gingrich presidency would look like. the american people are really smart. i am not interested in

distinguishing myself from it romney. i am happy to be who i am. i think that distinguishes me. i will let you guys worry about that stuff. the only person i want to focus on is barack obama. >> do you think it romney is not happy to be who he is? >> now, i mean it is not my job to be in the distinguishing business. i'm only going to distinguish myself from barack obama. >> he said in another setting that you're clearly more conservative. >> remember i said a moment ago, this is very disorienting. given where we are today, the only person i want to focus on is barack obama. my campaign is going to focus on real solutions and the president. we're not going to get involved in answering attacks. we're not going to try to compare ourselves with our friends. let our friends run the

campaigns they want to. we are going to focus on those two. i will probably later on tonight when you guys see this in. i do not know. i do so much foreign media. it is very hard to get around advertise excel much darn -- so much darn media. it is very hard to get around advertising. >> are you prepared to turn the other cheek in a debate if ronnie comes after you? >> -- is mitt romney comes after you? >> i did the other week. i do not know what you mean. >> what would it means you to win iowa? >> it would be an enormous advantage to win here. i think we will be in the top two or three. i cannot tell you tonight that we will win, but certainly, we will have an opportunity, and it will be an enormous opportunity

to win -- an enormous advantage to win here. thank you. good night. >> thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> i am 4400%. -- for you 400%. quaggas hear what the candidates are saying from the -- >> hear what the candidates are saying from the campaign trail. >> i think there is a third path, which is innovation and

growth. >> families like yours, young people like the ones here today, including the ones who were just chanting at me, you are the reason i ran for office in the first place. >> president obama says every household would save $2,500 per year if we went with obama care. i have not met one person yet who has told me they have saved $2,500 per year. in fact, it is quite the opposite. >> read the latest comments and link to our partners in primary and caucus states at c-span.org. >> next come alive, c-span poses series "-- next, live, c-span's series "the contenders" focuses series "the contenders" focuses