>> >>, massachusetts congressman barney frank's retirement conference, then a town hall meeting with house minority whip steny hoyer. this week, massachusetts congressman barney frank announced that he will not seek reelection in 2012, citing redistricting in his state as one of the reasons. congressman frank was first elected to the u.s. house in 1980 and is chairman of the connection services committee helped test the dodd-frank financial reform law. he spoke to reporters the day after the announcement. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> i have decided tentatively early last year that i would make this my last term. this would round out a 40 years in office. i have been doing my political work or somebody else's since october, 1967, with 16-month. off. -- six month period off. i have this desire to do some serious writing. i probably and at least tied for the longest trading on written ph.d. thesis in the history of harvard, and i know people who

could do serious writing was doing other things. i cannot. so, i decided i would not run again. i did anticipate that i would be serving one last time as chairman, and to turn my attention to a couple of issues. housing in particular i have also have been having hearings on things like [unintelligible] then, of course we lost the house. at the point we lost the house, i changed my mind. i saw my commitments to a couple of issues meant that i had to run for another term, otherwise i thought been seen as lame duck would undercut. there were two issues. one is trying to protect financial reform from being whittled away.

the other is to make sure that as part of deficit reduction is the military spending component because otherwise the impact on domestic spending programs would be to break it was to maximize my influence on those two things that i decided to run again. i am going on to do other things included a lot of writing, and frankly, what i now look forward to is a life of much less stress, and probably more money, not from lobbying, but for much in, writing, etc.. then, the redistricting came out. the problem with the district from my standpoint is that it would be very time consuming. the reason i decided to run again, or to maximize my ability to work on the component of

deficit reduction. it is complicated. military reductions is complicated because the -- you have to work on these things. i've been confronted a situation in which 25,000 people would be moving to the district that i have been representing, and that a 75% of the district first ran in. that is a lot of people. it would mean campaigning pretty much full time because they are new people, and they are not obvious automatic votes for me. i've also learned that i have become one of the great fund- raisers in congress in gross, not so much in debt. last year iraq is an enormous amount of money. unfortunately, only half of it was for me. half of it was for my opponent.

running against me is good for your campaign war chest. i had to be looking at raising another couple of million dollars, which is the least attractive part of this job, as far as i am concerned the point is this, my preference would have been not to run. i decided to run because i thought it was important for these two issues. then i confronted a situation where running again instead of giving me more credibility, it would be a serious interference with a time commitment in need to do the issue. so, what happened, the demands in the district not the reasons i was one to run it despite my personal preference was no longer operational, and i decided not to run. i have to say, i will volunteer. i am struck by noticing in today's papers there was one

candidate who was going to run against me, a woman who had been mitt romney's commissioner, and in massachusetts it is not great. she did not appear to have a broad political base. once i announced i was not running, and several other candidates decided they were running, including someone would move to pennsylvania, was not announced he is thinking about moving back from pennsylvania to run in my absence. so, apparently my absence has made the republicans think it is easier for them. my problem was i was going to run again to work on these issues, and there was no way i could campaign appeared there was an additional problem in the campaigning.

-- campaign. there was an additional problem in the campaign. i decided i was not going to be here when i was 75. the next term will end three months before my 75th birthday. that means i would be running for my last term. i would then be required to go to three added 25,000 people, some of whom i've never represented and say here is the deal -- elect me, and for the next two years i will be there to receive your problems, but at the end of 2014, i will dump them. problems are not often solve in two years or less, and i would have a hard time asking people to give me support for one short form remote. for all those reasons, i

decided -- short form removal. i do not intend to leave advocacy or public policy. i felt i was pretty good of the inside business here, and i've always thought i was a better legislator than candidate. unfortunately, for a lot of reasons today, this place does not work as well as it used to, and being good at the congressional progress and getting things done on the inside does not mean as much in terms of public policy. i will now be spending an increasing amount of my time this year and the outside effort, and given the values i have, try to change the nature of the structure is going to be more productive than working with in it. that is where we are. i will take questions. >> congressman, a lot of people

have called you a pioneer. [unintelligible] >> in the sense that i was the purse person -- first person to volunteer that i was gay. before gary, a number of members of congress had been caught in sexual activity that would have led people to infer that they were gay. as i recall, all of them announced that they were too drunk to remember what they were doing witches and unusual description -- which is an unusual description of one's member -- said earlier to remember things. i did not do it until i was 47. i was not a daring young man on a flying trapeze. it worked out better than i thought.

we did a number of things that i was pleased to be able to do. >> when you said you did not intend to leave the advocacy of public policy, the continue to advocate for dodd-frank? >> among other things, yes. i want to do some writing, i want to do some lecturing. lecture fees look good to me. i would be -- maybe some college teaching, but in all of these cases my focus will be on public policy. >> t think the greatest danger to dodd-frank. being whittled away piecemeal? >> the biggest danger would be the election of a republican president next year.

the republican presidential candidates ran out about the primary, almost all of them, and in the case of rick perry, those parts he can remember, i saw a piece of literature that listed send us $50, and we will listen to your opinion. they listed issues. they said which issues should we concentrate on reaching the environment, education, jobs, the economy, foreign policy -- 13 issues. financial reform was not one of them. for republicans, even in the house, have not advanced any major repeal. the danger now is they will

interfere with the implementation in two ways. first of all, this outrageous destruction of the constitution by senate republicans who are announcing [unintelligible] and secondly, the failure to fund. the republican insistence of not funding the cftc to deal with derivatives is outrageous. you have people criticizing the cftc for not doing more, and then not finding them -- funding them. i intend to keep up the arguments for that. the greatest danger right now is the study find people who believe in it, and the failure to fund. >> you were not informed about roughly $7 children in below-

market-rate blows that the fed gave -- loans that the fed gave. knowing that now, would you have asked the federal reserve? >> that money has been paid back. >> this has not. >> yes it has. the fed has been on fairly demonize. policies have been helpful for the economy. they have made money for the government. we did two things. first of all, we repealed section 13-3. we of gone from being accused of not ending too big to fail, to not been accused of and did it to effectively. [unintelligible] we did repeal section 13-3.

we put into the law that any transaction between the federal reserve and many private entity will have to be made public. federal reserve officials engaged in transactions with private companies now know it will be made public. >> so, you would not do anything differently in that program, not asking them what they were lending against? i am sorry to disappoint you, by saying we have solved the problem. we changed the law now, so yes, what i've changed a lot earlier, sure. i am in favor of what we did in that bill, which was to require these things openly debated in

public, and we've taken away the power they had to do it. i believe with the federal reserve has done has been helpful, constructive. arguments that it would be inflationary has been disproven, and on the whole, the government has made money on it. >> you yesterday said newt gingrich's candidacy is a reward. >> i said it would be a reward. >> you said it is not likely he would get the nomination. >> i tend to be skeptical if i can get what i really want. i am not an expert in the republican nominating process. i must say when i saw the sunday edition of "the union leader"

endorse newt gingrich, i channeled my grandmother. it seemed to me given the freddie mac think, the marital difficulties, the other issues that he has, the fact that he was fined by about house of representatives, i guess the distaste for mitt romney seems so strong that it always some of his problems -- some of newt gingrich's problems. >> if it would open up, would you be interested in being hud secretary? >> no. >> would you extend on the systemic issues that you see that make it difficult to change from within? what would you do if you had the authoritarian power to reshape the way congress works? >> well, first of all, i did

several years ago before obama was collected say my hope was obama would get elected, we would have four years of democratic control, and we could establish some new housing programs. what i said at the time is that would be my idea, and then i would like to have the chance to administer them. it did not work out that my biggest disappointment is i never became chairman, and i focused on rental housing. it has been my major goal. with the financial crisis, and revenues down, we could not do that. the reasons i would have liked to a been secretary -- of hud would be to administer programs that not exist.

secondly, i [unintelligible] as far as systemic changes, the first is the filibuster. pennies to be an assault on the filibuster. -- there needs to be an assault on the filibuster. if you read the u.s. constitution, and not only is the filibuster not in it, but in several places it says you need two-thirds of the vote to do something. is a well-established legal principles, the statement of the exception proves the existence of a rule. where an exception is stated, that means there is a rule. if it says no shopping on sunday, then there will is you can shop every other day. in the constitution, in three cases it says you need a two- thirds vote to ratify a treaty. that means that every other one is supposed to be a majority. it used to be that you would filibuster for great events.

this is a serious blow to a part of government. that would be the single biggest change i would make current the other changes not structural, but it is political -- mate. the other change is not structural, but it is political. if you are in england they vote for the house of commons and wednesday, the leader of that group is the prime minister on wednesday. in america, thanks to james madison, the constitution we are familiar with, the separation of power, you have three elections governing this country at one time. that was a deliberate choice not to let one election dominate. that is usually functional until recently because there were

differences, but there were not sure. you might as to go back to the civil war. a sharp swing between the accord of 2008 and 2010 mean you have people greatly at odds with each other. >> congressman, did you intend to endorse any candidates? >> not at this point point. -- point. i expect to support the democratic candidate. if it turned out there was a democrat with whom i greatly disagreed, and one white very much agree, then i would. -- when i very much of greed, then i would. >> i'm sorry. i was talking about the hud.

>> no. [unintelligible] >> is there anything you learned about the banking industry that you did not know going in that surprises you? >> i learned a lot about the banking industry. the extent to which there is activity that i would have pursued if i was here, that is often pursuing [unintelligible] things unrelated to the real economy. i was struck by the extent that there was activity that is not essential and not helpful to the real economy. that is what i would have been focusing on. >> two questions -- you will be leaving congress, and one of the pieces of legislation you have been fighting for premature

entire tenure, the employment not discretion -- nondiscrimination act will not be locked. can you talk about why that is the case and what you hope will happen? >> the only way you can get any lost past that fights discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation is when you have a democratic house and senate. people now realize how rarely we have had that. we have had that for four years of the 32 i've been in congress. we headed for the first two years under bill clinton, and two years with president obama. when bill clinton was president, it was still too early in public evolution. we got a couple of things done, particularly lbgt people get an asylum if you're a victim

[unintelligible] we have several things on the agenda of the last two years, and we have to do all of the three -- two of the three. it was a crowded agenda. health care have something to do with it. the education and labor committee was focused directly on health care, and there was this issue of transgendered conclusion. my own statement -- state of massachusetts found a way to break through that. i asked friends about the dimensions of that. the massachusetts legislature just pesticide bill -- just passed a signed bill. it avoids the whole issue of

what happens in locker rooms and bathrooms. that model, passed in massachusetts, i think people think you will do better. if you have a problem passing the bill that is seen as a liberal bill in massachusetts, new hampshire and new york, why would you think it is easier in wyoming? oakley, the next time we have a democratic house and senate, i think we could get that through. given the polarization on this issue, to the [unintelligible] extent it will be the next time you get a democratic house and senate. >> there is a chance depended on what happens in the election that there could be as few as one openly lbgt for number of

congress care what is your view on the importance of -- >> there is no question. we are all dealing with each other. nobody is anybody else's boss. some people are more entrenched than others. personal factors mean a lot. in the abstract, voting is one thing, telling someone who you have had good personal relationships with the you think she is inferior, that is harder. if you believe we should be finishing in the fight against legal discrimination and sexual orientation or gender, it is important to have people that are gay, trans gender, or lesbian in the mix.

>> you said that one of your main goals was to protect dodd- frank. do you think when you are gone it will be harder for democrats to tell the line against efforts to roll it back? >> not necessarily, no. i think it will be easier for this reason. the easiest chance to get to strangle something is in the early stages. once it is implemented, two things will happen. some people say the problem is uncertainty. they use them because they did not want to see changes. to the extent people are generally wary about uncertainty, once it is implemented the uncertainty argument will be against changing it. secondly, the fears that some have expressed and others have been exaggerated will show that they're not true. so, i think once it is fully implemented, and i think it will be another year, it is much

harder for people to get rid of it. on the other hand, if they're people that do not believe in it, it will be a problem. >> [unintelligible] >> i think the role we have is a pretty good one. seniority should be in legal terms a rebuttable presumption. because legislating is so personal, you do try to have rules to minimize conflict. i would say you start out with seniority, but it should not take an enormous amount for people to vote no. >> do what extent do your retirement and the retirements of others and changes in the election -- [unintelligible]

>> most of them got beat the did not retire. -- beat, they did not retire. it is a constant thing. these things do not happen in trudges. there is continuity. ages 6 sector. -- age is a factor. i was on "the today show." she thought why would you retire, and i am 71. i think it is constant. there are always senior members retiring or getting defeated and more people coming in. i did not think there's any qualitative change . when i -- we took over the house

in 2007, [unintelligible] i knew it was nonsense. henry waxman did not have any problem. i did not have any problem. there is no great generational change going on now. as part of the constant flow. >> there has been renewed focus about whether or not inside information -- there should be new laws governing personal investment. do you think current laws are adequate? >> did tv reporter for fox implied that i was injured and all because i was exposed. my own investments are in messages as -- in massachusetts

municipal bonds. i hope that would least minimize accusations of hanky- panky. [unintelligible] i did not think there was that much of a problem. was that much of a problem. i wrote to ask to have some movement on the stock at. insider-trading is not as clear- cut as people think. much of the basis for it is -- you get questions. in 2008 when we were hearing these things, the question would

be, if you were told someone was going to hell, would it be okay to go to your atm? we have to deal with some of those side questions. >> you worked to make it legal to gamble over the internet. how did you see that being resolved? >> i am a great believer in personal freedom. i am kind of surprise. some of my liberal friends engage in the censorship of gambling. i think personal freedom is important. that is why i am for it./ it is an important issue to me.

the co-sponsors of the legislation are myself, joe campbell.macand >> overside investment and geysers -- advisors. what is your feeling to establish one or more regulatory agencies? >> i am skeptical of these regulatory agencies. it is a self-fulfilling argument. give the public entities enough money. they will give the republicans the right to spend everything

its brings in in -- it brings in in fees. that amendment was offered and the committee adopted it and it was rescinded. if people want to volunteer to do self regulatory work, that is one thing. >> do you have any talks on the of mf global?ling >> people voted not to fund the ctfc and been criticized it for not handling mf global.

if the cftc is given the ability to function, the mf global situation is less likely to be a problem. i am interested in looking at the extent to which the legislation would be relevant. >> has john corzine agreed to hearing? athe >> i don't know. i want to make medical care more efficient. i am against arbitrarily cutting the money. these arbitrary cuts -- i will say how tragic it is that

republican intrench events -- intransigence led to people leaving government. i worry about the cutbacks. hospitals are a great source of employment. you start cutting back on hospital reimbursement and you have people in being bed pans at 3:00 in the morning. emptying bedpansg at 3:00 in the morning. nothing in my life has improved

in quality over the past 40 years that would not be comparable to health care. healthcare is quality of in -- is quantitatively different. we should be significantly less apt to say that it is because of inflation. >> what changes would you make to dodd-frank? >> not changes to the statute. such interpretations. not many significant ones. we did the exemption for the sec. we opened lawyer's trust accounts. there is an affiliate issued. .

i said that if it were possible, they would not wait to refuse and confirm. >> given the lockstep opposition [inaudible]nk, [no audi -- >> i meant to reform is popular.

there was too much regulation. they are trying to do that one by in direction. >> on the funding issue, is there anything that can be done about the veto of the appropriations bill? >> the republican subcommittee on the ftc is better than the republican subcommittee on being the -- on the sec. i have not been an audience anywhere that thinks it is a good idea to have the ctfc to regulate derivatives. it is a platform. >> online media and the

phenomenon you talked about. >> the media has been problematic in the two places. the default position of the media is that something crooked is happening. i am not a candidate anymore. there will be less challenges. a guy on npr said there was a great inconsistency in the way i reacted to a redistricting that was favorable to me than this one. why do making a career choice would be different when i was 41 and 1 i am 71.

here is one of the problems we have. there is a problem of excessive negativism. good news is not good news. it is not news. people tend to look for the motives. -- i am more quoted when i say something bad about someone. i am told that there are people in the country who are frustrated that we do not compromise more. i wish they had telephoned an e- mail. when you get the specific issues, you hear from people on both sides.

the people who communicate with their members of congress -- there is a parallel universe. it is not simply that they have different opinions. you are entitled to your own opinion. you are not entitled to your own sacks. -- own fact. s. when you go to compromise, the argument is not that you have given in too much. it is that you should not have compromise so much. i have people who do not believe that we should have dropped the single payer. the most active list element believes their side is the majority on every issue -- the

active list -- the activist element believes their side is the majority on every issue. i would say to people in the 113th, do not take the activist entirely at their word. -- activists entirely at their word. that is the major thing to do. not to be influenced by that. there are people out there who are not sending those e-mails.

>> republicans are seen your retirement as you be leaving you would not have gotten your chairmanship back -- believing you would not have gotten your chairmanship back. >> it depends. if newt gingrich would be the nominee, i would get it back. the answer is not yet out there. it is wide open. in personal terms, i would have

a hard time taking on the chairmanship a year from now and working on the chairmanship for two years. you did not make the chairmanship back. you make the majority back. we need to have enough segment -- enough senators to almost break a filibuster. i think it is possible that we will get a democratic majority. i do not think you will see a workable congressional majority for two years in the senate. >> are you confident that democrats will hold onto your seat or can republican make it? >> i am confident they will hold it.

newspapers are announcing that republicans are thinking about running. i am not the congenital optimist. i was the underdog or there was uncertainty five of those times. i will not be overly optimistic. you have to go back to what i was saying before. in massachusetts, there is one candidate who is about as unpopular as newt gingrich in massachusetts. he left massachusetts very unpopular. in southwest massachusetts, he was especially unpopular because of the things he did. given the presidential year, the democrats look good to hold the seat.

>> are you saying you are not endorsing someone to be the ranking member? >> at this point, i am not. >> but you buy in the future -- might in the future? >> i might. >> what is your view on what is happening in europe? >> the deterioration of the situation in europe has already held back our recovery. we were doing well. then the greek crisis hit and that not america back. if we had done a much better job of dealing with our crisis -- the european crisis has held us back in a number of ways. if there is a serious disaster in europe, that will have a negative effect on us.

you can be well collateralized, but it's all the collateral collapses, there is nowhere else to stand. -- but if all of the collateral collapses, there is nowhere else to stand. >> is there anything the u.s. can be doing? >> secretary geithner, the president, and ben bernanke are doing everything possible. >> do you regret not doing more to prevent fannie mae or freddie mac -- >> what do you think that could have done? you obviously think i could have. that is not a random question. what do you think that could have done? >> i am asking you. republicans have said the mortgage crisis was caused by the subprime mortgage crisis.

>> when did that happen? >> the chairman knows. >> i was not the chairman. i was in minority. i was not in charge of anything until 2007. in 2004, with regard to subprime loans -- following the lead of mike two north carolina colleagues, we tried to get legislation to stop the prime -- the subprime loans. in 2004, fannie and freddie were asked to do more. the republicans blocked my request to put steady and freddie into more rental

housing. the first thing i did when i became chairman to begin the process of adopting the bill on any and freddie. i became chairman in january of 2007. the first order of business of the committee when i became chairman was to pass the regulation for any and freddie, which the bush administration alike. -- administration liked. michael steele, the former chairman of the republican national committee said frank was right. he a acknowledged that that was wrong.

i did not become chairman until 2007. as soon as i became chairman, we acted. what more could i have done? >> tom delay gave the order that said, i do not want to see any more housing legislation. i tried to pass a bill to regulate fannie and freddie. bush said it was too weak. they say george bush gave them the one thing dissolute and that was the end of it. in 2007, we did pass the bill to block bad subprime loans in the house. we were denounced by the wall street journal. i will make copies of the editorial available. for restricting the market. that was the wall street journal in 2007 when we were in the majority. in the 2008, the blockage of bad

subprime loans is part of the financial reforms. the kind of laws that got us into trouble cannot be made any more illegally. thank you. -- cannot be made any more legally. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> he did not have a lot of romantic ideas about spying. he saw it for what it was. dirty business. >> carl colby examines the life

of a cia spy master, his father. >> if you watch the film closely and study him, he is a soldier. he took on the toughest, dirtiest assignments given him by president eisenhower on word. when a -- eisenhower onward. carl colby on his father william colby. >> steny hoyer took part in a town hall meeting. he talked about the failure of the super committee to reach a compromise on reducing the nation's deficit. he also took questions on the retirement age and u.s. foreign policy. this is about one hour and 10

minutes. >> as the professor, i am here to remind you of what a question is. a question is a short statement of inquiries that ends with the expectation of a response. [laughter] the key words -- short, response. some of you may be tempted to play the role of a professor and give a lecture or a speech. we will have a few words from the congressman about his

outlook for the economy, the state of the nation. then we will take some questions. we have three or four students who will have the honor of asking the first questions. they are brilliant sophomore from the university of maryland. i helped with that. they are my students. our program will begin -- now. the congressman is back. [applause] >> i want to say that i do not know i have had that exact drill before where i got up and sat down and got up again. it does give you the opportunity to leave. many of you showed poor judgment and did not. i am please get that.

before i begin, i want to thank the center for american politics and censorship for promoting careers in public service. for young people at the end of this speech i will say more about america's need for your participation. they are helping citizens overseas vote. thank you for that and to all of those working with you. this has resulted in overseas voters been 20% more likely to cast their ballot in 2010 than those who received their ballots by mail. 20%. the center's work running the maryland center is an important service to the citizens of our state. mayor landers -- marylanders

know where they can vote. that is a critical issue for students. we had a supreme court issued that allows low contributions without knowing the source. the problem about not knowing the source is that you did not know why they are telling you something on these urging -- 30 second and 60 second ads. the court has said they have a right to do that. you should consider the source. that is why the transparency is important. our state treasurer is here, one of our elected officials. she is one of three votes on the board of public works, a managing the money. that is why they are nice to her all the time. [laughter] that is why i always want to

mention her name. she is a wonderful lady. i know there are certain key -- certainly a lot of special interests. there is nothing wrong with making contributions. the constitution of the united states guarantees that citizens can address their government for redress of grievances. it is an absolutely critical right in a democracy. exercising that right is an important thing to do. transparency is critical so that you know and i know who is contributing to whom for what reasons and do they have an underlying motive. many students from the capitol hill internship program have entered for me. paul was a fellow. that is a high fluting --

highfallutin' unpaid s taffer. he has been sending me some wonderful interns. steven is in the back. danielle is there. thank you very much for what you are doing in our office. and thank you for providing talented people capc. today we find ourselves living in one of those moments. when it comes to the challenges of our debt, we have just seen what happens when political courage is lacking or when parties refused to compromise and come to consensus. as we come back from the thanksgiving holiday, we have seen little progress on deficit

reduction. in order to avoid the difficult and wrenching process of sequestration -- which is a series of automatic cuts that will take place without the kind of agreement the subcommittee was supposed to have reached -- congress will have to act. you may know what sequestration means, but you may not know the impact on the federal budget. it is an irrational process. it is an irrational process because it opines that we will cut across the board air respective of priority. -- irrespective of priority. if you and your family needs to spend -- needs to not spend $10, the theory is that you would

spend the $10 on the thing you least need in your life. if you have sequestration, you would cut 20 cents from everything you do across the board without regard to party. bowles-simpson n the so-called -- and the so-called gang of six have suggested a combination of revenue cut. spending constraints and the raising of additional revenues. the young people are going to have to pay the bill. my father and stepfather both fought in world war ii. my father was too old to go into

battle. he was stationed at a pow camp in texas as a finance officer. my stepfather fought in the pacific theater. he was shot down in the battle of the coral sea. he came back. tom brokaw called them the greatest generation. my fear is that my generation, if we do not act quickly with courage and conviction and wisdom, we will be known as the greatest and most selfish generation. young people, you should be angry about the position we are putting your country in and the legacy you are about to inherit of deep debt. it is not only and intellectually bankrupt policy we have been falling, but it is an immoral policy as well.

we need to get a handle on the budget. the simpson-bowles commission was appointed by president obama and by the leadership of both houses and the congress of the united states. they met and came up with a proposal to cut $4 trillion through a combination of efforts. there are five components of our federal budget. one you cannot do anything with, nor should we. that is payment of interest on the debt we have already borrowed. the other four are subject to change. one is non-defense discretionary spending. student loans fall in that category. educational assistance falls into that category. much of health spending, not all of it, falls into that category. the revenue of our federal government falls into that category. the second category is discretionary spending that is

defense spending. they are about equally divided. about 32% of the budget. 16% for each of those. a little less for domestic and a little more for defense. the fourth category is called tax expenditures. without changing any rates, if we reduce tax spenders, -- tax expenditures, we would have an additional $1.10 trillion in revenue. that is because we would eliminate loopholes, or more politely, a tax preference items. eliminating those would provide an additional $1.10 trillion. that is more money that we collect in income taxes in the united states of america. you can see that one of the ways we can get to where we need to

be, that $4 trillion, is simply by saying, what ever you are in, we will not increase your tax rates, but you will pay that rate on the income you are. there will not be a preference. there are three major preference items for individuals. the major preference item is the deduction for health care expenses. second, for mortgage expenses, and third for pension expenses. there are a lot of other preferences for individuals and corporations. the amount to $1.10 trillion of what bowles-simpson referred to as tax expenditures. the $4 trillion objective that bowles-simpson and began of -- and the gang of 6 or tried to get to was because it is at that

level that the debt is sustainable. it is a little less than 70% of your debt to gdp, gross domestic product, everything we make in america. we are now $15 trillion in debt. none of us can conceive of what a trillion -- of what $1 trillion is. it is a lot of money. it would take an extraordinary amount of dollars out of the pockets of everyone in this room and your children and your children's children in order to amortize that debt if we do not set ourselves on a fiscally responsible path. those of you who read the papers know that part of our fiscal problem is called by the fiscal instability in europe. greece is the particular example to which we look. greece has a debt level of about 128% debtload to gdp.

the good news for america and the bad news for greece is that greece does not have the resources to solve the problem they have created. they will need help from outside. the good news is that america has the resources to address its debt difficulties, its debt crisis, is that challenge. if we have the political courage and will to do so and we can create the agreement on how to get that done. the super committee, or the deficit reduction task force, failed in that effort. i urge them over the seven days before they concluded their work on a monday and said they cannot get to a resolution on an

objective that has been given to us -- i urged them to extend their life by 90 days. in my view, failure is not an option for our country. we must get to a fiscally irresponsible, sustainable path or you young people will not have the kind of country that i inherited from my family and my generation. you need to be angry about that, energized about that, and spoke about it. it is much harder to pick which sacred cow to butcher then to spare. if you sit around and say we will get that cow and that thou andrew like cows -- and you like cows, you do not want to take any of them.

everyone of you wants to spend money on different things. you think they are high priorities. if you are in a legislative body or a city council. the mayor is here. the inclination is to add on and not to choose. tousing is tough. choosing and making alternative traces is tough. it is tough in our personal lives. it is tough in our " relies and our government. we must remain relentlessly focused on jobs. -- it is tough in our corporate lives. we need to grow our economy. if you do not grow your e economy, you will not get your deficit challenge resolved because your revenues will continue the be substantially down. the demands on government will

increase. you will have the opposite of what you want, more jobs and fewer demands. there is no alternative but to succeed. i am hopeful that as we go back to congress tomorrow that i will be able to work with members of both sides of the aisle and say, yes there are sacred cows. yes we would like to ask nobody to tighten their belts a little bit. no reductions in expenditures and no increases in revenues. that would be a short-term solution, but it would be a long-term catastrophe. young people, i am pleased to be here to talk about these issues. as we move into the second decade of this millennium. , as we move into the country

that you will inherit. i am hopeful that the congress in which i serve will not leave you a legacy of debt, but will leave you a legacy of a fiscally sustainable path. we will not get there in my service in the congress of the united states. we were at balance. we were at surplus. bill clinton is the only president in my lifetime -- there may be somebody in this audit is older than me. there is at least one, i know. [laughter] neither the senator nor i were alive the last time we had four years of budget surplus. the only president in my lifetime to accomplish that was president bill clinton. let me tell you how we as a country accomplished that. we had a republican majority

that kept a restraint on spending. you had a democratic president that said we need those revenues to save social security and to make sure we are able to pay for our defense and our domestic security needs. and we had an economy, a private sector, information technology, explosion in our economy. it was not democrats or republicans or simply the private sector. it was the three all acting in concert. not because they agreed, but because there was a multi-party responsibility. the reason i believe now is the time to accomplish this objective is that it is almost impossible to make the tough decisions on entitlements. i do not think i mentioned entitlements. that is the fourth. i said tax expenditures as before. entitlements is the fourth. there are 55 million to 70

million people who receive transfer payments from the federal government. many of them rely on them to survive and need to be protected. many of them do not rely on those payments to survive or do well. they believe strongly that they worked for those entitlements and they should get them. that is an understandable sentiment. we are going to have to ask all of us to simply make a contribution toward solving this issue. those of you who see people now demonstrating, occupy wall street -- that occupy wall street movement reflects an anger, an angst and a fear about the future of the country. the middle-class in america is

shrinking. that is not a policy we should allow to continue. every country that i have ever been to has poor people. every country that i have been too has rich people, every country. america's you need ness -- uniqueness came from a broad middle class that was making good wages and was able to buy houses and cars and groceries and clothes and all the things people made here in america. let me end with an agenda item i am pushing hard. it is called, "make it in america." it is an agenda that says america is a dream. that dream is that all of us will have the opportunity to realize the american dream of success, not just financial success, but success in

accomplishing our objectives and leading a quality life. that was the american dream. there are a lot of people who do not believe that dream is alive for them and are fearful it will not be alive for all of you. make it in america means you are going to make it, you are going to succeed, you are going to pass the test and win the game. it also means you are going to make it in america. you are going to manufactured in america and grow in america. you are going to sell here and around the world. manufacturing creates a middle- class and pays 22% more than the average wages in other types of jobs. it gives working people the opportunity to make sufficient money, to have sufficient security and health care so that they and their families are

living in a satisfying, quality of life, weight. i want to -- quality of life way. i want you to believe that america is going to make it. we are going to start manufacturing, making things in america. we say to the automobile industry, something that was important for our country. it saved hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of jobs. manufacturing jobs have the biggest leveraging effect on other jobs -- levering the fact that any other enterprise -- leveraging of that than any other enterprise. we are going to make it by doing

what john kennedy asked us to do. not what our country can do for us. but what we can do for our country. thank you. let me hear your questions. >> hello, congressman. my question is, as a proud supporter of the federal pell grant program, how will you support the program that has given $6,000 in aid when republican house members want to shut it down? >> from a partisan standpoint, the democrats have been strong supporters of pell grants. pell grants replace 70% of the basic cost of college -- 70% of

tuition costs. they are now 33% to 34%. there was a proposal to decrease those. they will not be decreased. president obama has made it clear. i don't know if you know what day whip is. there were horse riders on each side with whips keeping

hounds in a pack: after the objective. -- hounds in a pack going after the objective. i can say, i want to give you more money. that is not why we have the pell grant. we have the pell grant because we know america will not be the great country we wanted to be. it will not be the successful country we wanted to be if we do not educate -- out-educated the rest -- out-educate the rest of the world. we have the best higher learning institutions in the world. in america, we have believed you

needed to provide access. when i came to the university of maryland -- this is going to hurt you and when you tell your parents they are going to whince. i was a commuting students. i worked as a file clerk. my first semester at the university of maryland was $86. again, that was in 1847.

we ask taxpayers to invest in you and some of the other billions students so you have access and our society and country will be better -- other brilliant students so that you have access and our country and society will be better. >> thank you. >> all of those guys who had such great things to say are walking out on me. is mary.name >> we had an opportunity to have a picture taken tonight. >> i remember. why doesn't congress introduce a bill to let people take out a certain amount of their 401k without penalties. s? >> some years ago, we allowed you to keep it in. i think that is a good

suggestion. we have not recommended that yet. for one thing, it is a little perverse. americans are saving more now. we are not a good saving country. we are not a good saving culture. we tend to be spenders. now people are worried. what do you do if you do not know if you will get another $10 in your pocket? you can to hold onto that $10. that is a good suggestion. the other suggestion being made by the president of the united states is to cut the social security tax in half to 3.5%. it is now 7%. both for recipients and individuals. that will cost about $240

billion. i have supported that proposal. i have reservations about it. we do not have any money to give anybody money. we would have to borrow. if we are going to borrow that sum of money, i am not sure if putting it into infrastructure would not be a better return. we would create jobs. at the end of the jobs being created, we would have something that needed to be done, whether it was a safer school, a stronger bridge, what have you. i will look at that alternative in terms of allowing people to take money out of their 401k without penalty. >> thank you. >> you bet. >> my question is, as the 2011

year end and we approach 2012, what goals do you plan on accomplishing by this time next year and how you plan on achieving them? >> it is a tough atmosphere in the house of representatives in the united states -- and the united states senate. one of the things i urge my colleagues to do is not to think in 24 month cycles. do not be brought to the fact that members of the house think in 24 month cycle. they have a job for 24 months. they are focused on what they can accomplish in 24 months. in 24 cannot do it months, you cannot go home to the constituents and say, this

is what i did. in 2019 or 20201, we will have the budget deficit down to 80% -- or 2021, we will have the budget deficit down to 80% of gdp. if i can come home and say, i did this or i did he did this or passed this piece of legislation. what will be the biggest thing we can do for our economy is to get our country on a fiscally sustainable path that gives us that $4 trillion reduction over the next decade. that will be the single best

thing we can do for our country and for all of us. >> good evening congressman. i have another question about education. talking about reprivatize expenditures in education, including cutting funding for arts and arts education. i want to ask your opinion about the bill going through right now. >> there has been longstanding. -- longstanding position on these arguments. we get a good return.

we have a $3.70 trillion budget. the return is an elevating of our culture and our understanding and appreciation of things that enoble the human spirit. every generation must pay attention to its culture, to its art, performing arts, its writers. every great government in history has afforded that to a much greater extent than the united states of america. in the united states we have a lot of generous people. they get a tax preference for their generosity like a series

of trade-offs. many people are giving substantial sums to the arts, to the humanities, to charitable, cultural efforts. they get a tax benefit. if we eliminate all preferences, some people would be worried about that endeavor. we spent a relatively small amount -- not a small amount in the sense of anyone in this room or the university of maryland, but in a sense of the united states of america. a small amount on the encouragement of the arts. it is to our country's benefit that we make those investments. let me say something to all of you young people. it is not that i am excluding the those who are slightly older than young people. you have a much bigger stake in what is going on. you will live with this much

longer than some of the rest of us. it will impact your lives over the long term. you need to be sensitive. there is debate in washington about cutting spending. spending is not all alike. if i spend on a pell grant, i expect that to pay off for at least 3/4 of a century. if i spent on buying a new car, that might last for 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 years, maybe longer. those investments we make in education are just that. they are investments on which we expect a return. do we need to rein excessive spending? the answer to that is yes.

at the university, the university has tough times. there are many people unemployed. property values are down. property-tax revenue is down. when that happens, you have to borrow money to keep it going, or you have to reduce your expenditures or go into debt. at the federal level, we have gone deeply into debt. at the state and local levels, they cannot do that. we need to continue to invest in the arts and humanities. >> thank you very much. >> who is back here? paul is the boss. >> as you may know,

[unintelligible] the play a nato force of the coast of syria. population reduction. . .

because he is the one person i know of in the u.s. government who was committed to such a war. his own military has gone to him and warned him do not attack syria or iran. would you take action through impeachment or the amendment or a person plinl unstable? >> the question is would i encourage to do that if i ap dotted your premise the answer would by hope i would have the courage to do so. i don't adopt your premise. i think your premise is dead wrong. i think president obama has no intent to go to war either with syria or iran. i will tell you, however, that i believe that iran is a very, very dangerous entity in today's world. it is head bid mr. ahmadinajed who has made it very clear that he wish it is destruction of israel, destruction of some of

his neighbors in the middle east and destruction of america. and he is seeking nuclear weapons. the entire world is concerned about that not just president obama the united nations is concerned about that effort by mr. ahmadinajed and of course he is not in charge, khomeni is in charge in iran. in terms of syria, the arab world wants to see syria's leader removed because he is in the process of slauthering his own people who want, like the people elsewhere, to have a voice in their government. so i don't adopt your premise. i believe that president obama has shown great courage and great leadership in a very polarized environment in which cooperation with the congress he has found to be almost

impossible. i think that's lamentable but i think it is an accurate reflection on the present political situation that he confronts. if in fact the intent by some is simply to defeat president obama, then any success that he would have in growing jobs or anything else would be counter intuitive for that objective. further more, as it relates to president obama would be, as i think a perfect example where he wanted to in the most surgical way bring to a close a tyrannical dictatorship that was commiting extraordinary human rights abufse that killed -- was killing its own people that threatened to inileyate the people of bin gazzie and i think he did so in exrayly successful way not losing a single american life in the process. but bringing to end one of the

real tyrannical figures on the world's stage. so i simply do not adopt your premise. but the answer to your question is if i did i would hope i would have the courage to act consistent with my convictions. >> good evening. i just had a question about wasteful spending and just the particular kind that actually does affect our generation and that's our nation's drug policies. i was wondering if we continue to spend the same amount of money but haven't seen much result if you support a reform. >> i'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. obviously very controversial. we have change ds some degree. we changed something that i think was the right thing to do. we had a disparate sentencing structure for cocaine and for crack. crack being mainly a drug used by a minority community,

cocaine being used by a more affluent community. whether they were minority or not, more affluent group of people, one carrying a higher penalty by a factor of 5-10. i mean, five times. i thought that was wrong. we addressed that in a bipartisan way by the way we addressed it. the republican leadership was critical to getting that job done as was democratic participation. the issue of drugs is a very serious one. a significant plurality if not majority of the prison beds in america -- and america has one of the highest rates of incarceration of any nation in the world. a significant number of those beds are taken by those who are there for drug crimes. drug related crimes.

not simply for use, personal uses, but for possession with intent to sell or for the commission of crime to get money to use drugs or the commission of an assault or other violent crime while on drugs. extraordinary difficult question for us to deal with. we're not doing it very successfully. we need to redouble our efforts. now, are you asking if i am for legalizing certain of these drugs, the answer to that is no. are you asking me if i think we ought to revisit how we treat particularly offenders who are not -- who are offenders because of use of drugs as opposed to commission of crimes while under the influence of drugs? i'm certainly open to revugse viewing that because from an economic standpoint and from a penal standpoint, what we are doing is not working.

>> thank you. >> hi, congressman hoir. >> hi there. i can't see you. i guess we can't move that mike over a little bit. is there an aisle there? now, have you been standing with the baby for a long time? i hope not. i'm sorry. >> thank you so much for your service to our district. i now have four generations in my family in your district. including my five little ones. and because of that there's an issue that is near and dear to my heart and that is finding and providing healthy safe food for them. and there's actually a bill in congress right now that will help with that. what's been happening over the past several years actually, the fda has been targeting with arms range and undercover spin

operations on farmers like local safe food including raw unprocessed milk for families. and especially if that milk comes from one state to another there's actually -- in 1987, the fda -- >> a lot of the voting public in the last session thinks exactly as your child is thinking right now. >> i'm sorry. she was fine up until then of course. but basically the f.d.a. spending the taxpayers dollars undercover sting operations on farmers who are providing a product that millions of americans are begging for. and there's a bill in congress right now that will decriminalize that and just relegalize the interstate transportation of raw milk intended for human consumption. so i have a three part question.

are you aware and if you are do you support it? if you're not aware of it will you spend 15 or 20 minutes discussing it with me so i can fill you in and ask for your support on the legislation? >> i'm not familiar with it. i know about it but i'm not familiar with the legislation. clearly -- are you familiar with that legislation? ok. let me say this. in an era where we all lived in a small village and we knew farmer jones or farmer brown and we were pretty confident that farmer brown would not sell us something that was not tainted or was not healthy as you point out, we didn't need an f.d.a. perhaps. but we found that pretty soon we did need an f.d.a. because we were dealing with people that we had no idea who produced the food, where it was produced, under what conditioning it was produced and we saw very substantial

adverse health consequences coming from food which was not healthy. for your baby, for you, or for others. so the f.d.a. was created for the purpose of making sure that the prescription drucks that we get and or the food that we get is in fact safe for human consumption. i think that is absolutely critical function but i will look at that bill to see if i believe there is, as you seem to think, some discrimination on what would otherwise be very healthy food and milk or milk is what you were referring to specifically. but i will look at that and see what i think about that. but i will tell you, i believe the food and drug administration per forms a critical function for a safe america when you have 315, 325 million people in america and probably % of them has any real

idea where the food they eat comes from. but i will talk to you about it. ok? and now that i am not distracting you, maybe the baby will be happier. >> thank you, congressman. my question is you're talking about the attacks earlier and insolvency for medicare, medicaid, social security. i was wondering those agencies, those programs are at risk of becoming insolvent. do you believe that the retirement age and eligibility age for medicaid should at least be raised? >> in the past i gave a speech a couple years ago in which i said everything needed to be on the table including ages. now why. and this is very controversial

particularly in my party and there are some who are critical of me. when social security was adopted in 1935 the average life expectancy was about 65.4. they set the age at 65. now the life expectancy for somebody like me is into my 80s. at least that's my expectation. maybe even longer. but the fact of the matter is we are living very much longer lives and healthier lifes. and more productive lives for much longer periods of time. in that context, it seems to me to be irrational to take that off the table. in fact, in 1983, as you, before you were born, in 1983, ronald reagan, a mr. president president, and tip o'neal a democratic speaker of the house sat down together and they agreed that social security was going to go bankrupt. what that meant was its cash flow -- the money being paid in social security was never

really an investment fund. it was a pass-through fund because you started giving benefits immediately. and as a result those working paid into a system and those retiring took it out. so it was pretty much a pass-through. now, for almost all of its years it has had a surplus. we have use that had to mask the depth of our debt and use that had money to spend. but what ronald reagan and tip o'neal did was say look we'll increase the age from 65 to 67, which is 67 will be in about, i don't know, six, eight years. they phased it in one month a year and they didn't phase it in for 25 years. so everybody had an opportunity to get an understanding of what they could expect after all, if i promise you when you're 65 or 6r6 years of age you're going to get x, you manage your finances, based upon that, your

savings, your cash flow, my mortgage payment, so if we change the age it has to be done significantly prospectively so that people have an opportunity to plan their lives around what they are going to be getting. that seems to me fair. but i think it ought to be on the table. very controversial, however, as you know. >> thank you. you gave me the right answer by the way. >> good. i'm always pleased when i can give the right answer. if you will be quick i'll be quick, we'll see if we can get through this. >> congressman i'm the de facto financial advisor for my 89-year-old mother. she lives on three checks. one from working and she gets retirement benefits from the federal government, one which she gets for social security, and one which she gets for survivor's annuity for my father. i'm also the representative

payee for my younger sister who i deal finances for because she is mentally ill. tell me what should i do as the representative payee when congress is talking about cutting those programs. >> again, the key word for you is prospective. prospectively. your 87-year-old mother, you will have no problem managing her finances. there will be no change in her finance. when i say that i want a caveat. there is talk about applying a change cpi -- not just to social security but to everything where there is a cpi adjustment. it's approximately 3/10 of a point less than the cpi. solet say this year social security is getting a cpi this coming january, did not get it in the last two. i think is about 3.5%. so it would be 3.2%.

expect for that -- except for that there would be no present benefit taken away from your mother. now, i believe that is the kay as well for your sister. i believe the case would also be the same case for your sister. now, your sister gets supplemental security income, ssi. one of the things at the age we mentioned when it was created. when social security was created it was only for the person who turns 65 and only for them. there was no survivor benefit. if they were disabled prior to 65 there was no disability benefits. if they died prior to 65 and they left children under 18, there was no survivor benefit. so we have add add lot of benefits on to social security.

but in your case, in my view, there would be little if any change with the one caveat that i indicated on increase. the increase might be a little bit smaller. but let me say something. so you get hoyer's view on this. i believe that a society that is worth its salt ought to take care of its most vulnerable citizens. that does not mean in my view that we have to take care of our best off citizens the same way. now, there are some in this country that argue no, no, we earned this, we get this, everybody ought to get the same thing. as a matter of fact, ross perot wanted to do away with social security. his point was, look, i'm a multi-billionaire. why are you sending me $20,000 a year?

my point to you is that i have a feeling that your mom and your sister are very vulnerable and don't, as you pointed out, don't have a lot of cash or stocks or bonds or dividends they are getting. we ought to make sure that they are ok. but the folks who have done better, not to penalize them but to say you've done well and your country needs some help, we are going to reduce you by 3/10 of a point. and i think that would be fair. and smart. and good for all these young people. ok, that wasn't as quick as i intended to be. >> good evening. my name is alexander and i'm a senior at the university of maryland. first, think very much for the pell grant. and secondly, my question, i'm very concerned -- thank you very much for taking advantage of it. >> no problem. i'm very concerned about the issue of climate change.

in fact, i think that's the most serious issue facing our country this century. despite our current budget problems and our national debt, do you think we maybe should increase spending on research to help fight climate change and what do you plan to do to address this issue? >> i think alternative energy is probably one of the it of the coming decades. it is coming opportunity. alternative energy sources. we see that now in lerk cars, we see it in the utilization of fossil fuels even and natural gas where it's cleaner burning fuel. we failed to pass an energy bill as you know in the last congress very controversial. but we are still making efforts. we invested a lot of money in the american recovery and reinvestment act in alternative energy sources. and i think we will continue to do so. it is very controversial.

there are a number of people who there are people smart people who believe that global warming is not an issue. that is not as much as issue in our party as it is in the republican party. there are differences of the republican party some believing that global warming is a natural occurring phenomena where you go up and you go down. , you go up and down. i don't share that view. i think that while it certainly historically true that we have seen areas of climate warming and climate cooling, i think there is little doubt but that man and particularly the use of fossil fuels to the extent that we are using them in the globe today with china and india escalating their use of fossil fuels very rapidly is having a detrimental effect on the

warming of our planet and the changing of our environment. so we are going to continue to invest in alternative energy and very frankly that is now only a -- not only a good thing for us to do in my opinion from an environment standpoint but a wonderful thing to do from an economic standpoint and jobs creation. i think a lot of jobs will be created producing alternative energy and the chinese are very much ahead of us for instance in solar panels. we need to catch up and make sure that we are doing what -- crowd? what do we want to do with solar panels? make it in america. gets $100 right over here. ok. next. >> my name is roger. i'm a plummer with local 5 here in d.c. and i have helped a lot of the people here keep this

university running and the toilets flushing. one of the reasons some of them back up sometimes is bauts of what's happening on pennsylvania avenue, the lines get too full. that's supposed to be a joke, fellows. now, you know -- you ought to come to my place. unfortunately, it happens here in at tufert. however, looking at the whole situation, you're talking a lot about comics. but congress has pretty much ignored this relegislation of glass spiegel and none of them talk about this huge infrastructure project. 4 million jobs. and the economy, why is it in the states it is if congress is

doing its job? now, i think the way you're thinking and the rest of the congressmen are thinking is that it will this type of thinking will permeate the enactment of this british third world war. and i think linden larouche is absolutely correct on this and most of congress is wrong. so i'm just wondering if you would rethink this thing about endorsing the impeachment of obama whose a british asset. >> let me tell you something, i don't want you to go away confused. i am for obama. i think obama has shown great courage and leadership. i intend to support president obama. [applause] that's what makes democracy so

great. >> this is the way world wars are started. >> next question. >> good evening, congressman. my name is john. i had a question about your make it in america agenda. you talked about investing in high tech energies, for instance. how exactly would you do that when we're concerned about reducing our deficit in this economy? >> again, remember i mentioned these three commissions, bowls simpson do minchirivelend and the gang of six which is now a commission. all of them agree and i agree on this premise. we must grow the economy in the short term. if you cut spending very significantly in the short term, you will tamp down economic growth. you will then the b chasing your tail down a rat hole because unless you grow jobs and grow the economy, you will not get revenues no matter what your rates are. you have got to have people working in order to get

revenues. as a result, i believe that we need to in the short term make sure that we grow jobs. i'm for the president's job growth. although as i told you the fico tax decreases would not neffsably my first choice. if that's the only way we can get some sort of stimulative effect then in a world of at natives i'm take the alternative that's available. but i would much prefer to invest those dollars in infrastructure. i thought the plummer was going to say something else. i'm interested that neither linden larouche questions mentioned glass spiegel which i think is major focus. it's not a bad focus. in any event that's the answer to your question i think. >> thank you for your time. >> i see all the other questioners who were intimidated by somebody.

>> not actually could i do a real quick one? >> i'll do a quick one and a quick answer and sum up. >> the following question concerns our liberties. what is your stance on the u.s. senate's new defense authorization bill sponsored by both fellow democrat karl 11 and republican senator mccain which will give the president and future presidents the authority to indefinitely imprison citizens? what will you do as a minority whip to fight this unconstitutional bill? >> all right. during the bush administration, i made it very clear that i thought the suspension of habeas corpus even for noncitizens under this very difficult scenario that confronts us, we're really not at war, they're not prisoners of war, they're not uniformed soldiers you confront on the field. remember i said that my father was finance officer at a pow

camp for ss officers. they were prisoners of war. they would be released at the end of the war. now, interesting enough a number of them didn't want to go the back to germany but having said that, i believe that habeas corpus of some type needs to exist. in this kind of environment. let me explain why. and let me explain to you young people why i'm explaining this because now a days everybody has their phone and it's a camera and they take down your phrases. now the problem is they only take one phrase they don't give the explanation. but this is a very complicated scenario that we are confronting with terrorists. terrorists who come at us abroad, whose intent is to kill us. and who are taken into custody

and proof may be difficult. however, i don't think it is tenable for a nation that has the principles that the united states of america has to take people with the premise that we can hold them indefinitely without there being some oversight of the person or persons who took those people into custody. let me tell you one thing that i have suggested as well. and there is a debate going on -- i discussed it with white house counsel and eric holder the attorney general. why we could not -- and there's a constitutional issue here which is why we cannot. why we could not authorize a title 3 court -- that's a court that if you were arrested and you said you were arrested incorrectly and i could show the court that you get a writ of habeas corpus to take you in front of the court and the scourt would make a determination whether the arresting authority had authority and probable cause and was there for legally is jussfid in holding you.

i think there ought to be that procedure available to even terrorists. for instance, we have domestic terrorists. we had a building burned down in oklahoma city killing hundreds of people, children, women, innocent civilians, and he was accorded constitutional rights. now, foreign terrorists are not due constitutional rights. they are not citizens, they are not residents, the crime may have been committed overseas. but america -- not in conversation for the terrorists, conversation of our own principles, ow how we want to act, what our expectations are if our citizens were taken into custody in some other nation. how we would want them to be treated. so the answer to your question is i believe that we ought to have a type of habeas corps proceeding available. not necessarily exactly the

same that we have here, not exactly the same criteria because after all we are at a war where the expression of -- i mentioned ahmadinajed. now, we are not confronting, however, theoretically formally state aggression. this is individual aggression. group aggression. terrorist aggression. but it is not the same and therefore we need to think creatively of how to meet our own principles, our own requirements of how we think we ought to handle ourselves as america in this context. >> just to clarify. basically -- >> my answer or yours? >> clarify the bill. i don't know if you understand. like i fully said what it was. >> go ahead. >> the basically, the law says for the first time that our homeland is part of the battlefield. meaning that they can be

detained, americans, meaning that if someone is a political disdent they could be detained without charge or trial. i honestly don't think that giving up civil liberties is right. >> i don't accept your interpretation of senator levin's language or senator mccain's language being simply if you're a disdent. if you're going to occupy wall street or saying i want the government changed. i don't believe that the language that you are referring to provides for what you think it does. i think what it is trying to provide for is the very difficult question -- and my answer to you was i'm not sure i agree with that language. you understand that? do you understand, i'm not sure that i agree with that language. >> well, it does clarify that it's about that. but you're running out of time so -- >> apparently you are too. >> yeah. >> i guess my time was your time. right? >> i said young people that i

tell this story. i got into politics because john kennedy came to this campus and he spoke. i was almost going to miss it. i went and had an extraordinary impact on my life. it was almost a damascus road experience. it turned me around and focused what i wanted to do. i use a quote all the time that has meant so much to me and is one of driving things i hear in my head as i pursue this job of being a congressman, which sometimes is pretty difficult. right now it's pretty difficult. but kennedy said in his inaugural address that the energy, the faith, the devotion, e we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it. and the globe from that fire can truly light the world. young people, i hope that you believe that your energy, your faith, and your devotion honed

in this university brought to enterprises of importance either private or public will indeed continue to light the light of this country that is not only been the light for so many of our own people but the light for people around the world. thank you. [applause]

>> c-span's live in atlanta georgia today. here you can see the new

campaign headquarters of herman cain in the northeast part of the city. he is expecting to open the doors today but after recent allegations of a long-term affair and sexual harassment this could be the place where he announces the end of his run. we'll hear within an hour or so. the g.o.p. presidential candidate will take a podium expected sometime between 12:30 and 1:30 eastern time to address the future of his candidacy. we'll be covering the event live but while we wait, here's a preview of what we might hear from him today with a reporter who joined us on "washington journal." >> decision day for cain remembering that announcement today at noon which you can see. here to talk about the latest

going on is eyes yak do vare the deputy politics editor for politico. what do we know as of this morning about what the decision will be? we don't know any details about what's in herman cain's head specifically although people around him who have been talking with him are getting the impression that he is likely to announce that he will be withdrawing from the race laider today. >> can you expand on that? >> sure. this has been a very difficult couple of weeks for the cain campaign. they have been under fire because of the sexual harassment allegations and then there was some other stumbles that people might remember when he had some trouble with an answer on libya policy, speaking with the milwaukee journal sentinel a couple weeks ago. they were doing ok in their minds, holding back the tide. but the revelation on monday by this woman ginger white that

she has claimed to have an affair with cain for the past 13 years seems to have been too much for the cain campaign to handle in the same way. on tuesday morning, cain was on a conference call with supporters saying that he was going to reassess his campaign and over the days since he has been definet in his public appearances but in interviews it has been indicating that he is leaning towards deferring to his family and perhaps pulling out of the campaign. he met with his wife yesterday in person for the first time since the affair came out and -- >> did any information come out of that meeting? >> the meeting between cain and his wife, there's no official information out but again the people who have been talking with cain are coming away from it with the impression that he

is likely to pull out today. >> and you're talking permanent suspofpktse campaign, not a temporary one. >> that is what their -- the pieces that they're putting together from what they've heard from cain. again, the came campaign has proven that they have a lot of surprises up their sleeves and so i don't think anybody would be totally shocked if he decides to forge onward today. but it does seem that that's not what they're expecting still. >> and to your last point, even the website that we've seen women for cain and how that plays into this? >> well, every campaign has an effort like that. that website went up though just in the last two days. and it's part of an effort that the cain campaign has been

going through in the last 36, 72 hours to try to rally support to have another page that's encouragement for cain, that they have a site where they're asking supporters to tape holiday messages for cain. the women for cain effort is one that obviously in light of the claims and allegations about him that they were hoping would be a bit of a buffer but it in the end, if they feel that all this is too overwhelming i don't know that the women for cain effort would be enough to hold off the tide. >> and there's one source says mrs. cain or his wife was involved in are this project. >> she was listed as the official chair. they haven't done anything with this group beyond putting up the website yet. so it's not clear exactly what that entails being involved with it. and the notable part of that is that his wife is really been an

absent presence from the campaign trail. we're used to seeing candidates wives campaign with them even deliver speeches on their own and campaign without their husbands out on the trail. that's not been how gloria cain was involved with the cain campaign. she i believe was at his campaign kickoff rally but not -- months ago, in may, but has not been at a campaign event since then. not even in the debates that we're all used to seeing of the candidates wives coming up on the stage and posing pictures. she's never been there for that and she has only done one interview over the whole campaign with fox news and that was a couple of months -- a couple of weeks after the sexual harassment allegations first surface. >> what's the state of the cain

campaign's infrastructure as far as ground forces things along that line because of this week? >> well, a lot of -- they were campaigning in michigan, ohio, and south carolina this week. we had reporters at most of those events and they were seeing huge numbers of supporters show up. the campaign infrastructure though has always been smaller and less experienced than that of mitt romney, for example. and so there have been questions about whether some of that staff will move to other candidates now. so far, they have not. and obviously if mr. cain decides this afternoon to end his candidacy, we expect that

what small infrastructure he had put together would likely move to one of the other candidates. and there's a lot of people that the prime beneficiary would be knut gingrich. >> and tell the truth. >> and we take you to atlanta georgia. presidential candidate is expected here at his new campaign headquarters. you can see some of the crowd gathered and one of the state senators rallying his support and others for herman cain's campaign where he's expected to address the future of his candidacy and make an announcement shortly. earlier this week in an interview with the publisher and the staff of new hampshire's newspaper he said he was heading home to speak with his wife about the allegations and he told the paper that that if his wife tells him to quit the race he will. we'll be bringing live coverage where he is expected to speak between 12:30 and 1:30 but first we'll head north and look

at his conversation earlier this week with the staff of the union leader and we'll show you as much as we can prior. c-span has been kind enough to tape most of these with the capped dates. they don't ask the question, we do. so that way it gets to a wider audience. and i mentioned to mr. gordon earlier that i was going to hit you up about the federal reserve, which you served on the regional board. >> the regional board. >> and i had a couple questions. one is what you think people ought to understand about the federal reserve. there's a lot of talk about making it more open. two is were you surprised at all by the secret loans that they were making to the bank? and three what do you think of

them helping out the europeans? >> that's 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 shouldn't. 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 1970s to try and control unemployment. you can't hit two targets with one arrow. the only arrow they have is money supply. so i believe that the dual mandate should be reduced back down its original mandate that it had prior to the 1970s. now, when i was on the federal reserve board in the 1990s, we

weren't faced with the size of the national debt that they have today. we weren't faced with these international financial crices. unemployment wasn't big deal in the early 1990s when i was on the federal reserve board in kansas city, unemployment was right around 5%. so we never had to try to hit two targets with one bullet or one arrow. and so it was a mute point. and today's environment is not a moot point. so that's what i have been saying in terms of how we fix the fed. >> is the mandate the first one that you mentioned, is that a written mandate or has that come down through the understanding of the fed's role? >> no. that's the written mission of the federal reserve. >> and you as a member of the regional federal reserve, 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 then. we had some bankers on there, we had some farmers on there. we had some people who worked in agriculture. so at a typical board meeting the professional paid staff of the federal reserve would say, based upon all of that economic analysis, here's what the economy looks like. here's where we see it trending, here's the health of the banks in that particular federal reserve district. and on and on. and then we would provide anecdotal feedback as to what was happening in our businesses, what was happening in our sector. i could talk about the restaurant sector because when we saw restaurant sales for the industry starting to fall off that was another piece of input in terms of what was happening to the economy. and so we provided anecdotal

input. and then the president of that particular district along with his chief economist would then recommend whether they felt that the 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 the discussion they would make a recommendation that the board was comfortable with. and so my role was to provide a recommendation, be a part of the decision to provide a recommendation for that district, then that recommendation would then go to washington where the federal governors, along with at the time alan greenspan would consider what our district was recommending and all of the other 11 districts and then they had to deliberate on the national economy in order to make the decision. >> ron paul's been making a big deal out of the secrecy aspect of the federal reserve. i don't know if you saw any of

that when you were on the board. but given what has come out about this secret loans to banks, what's your position? >> well, here again when i was on the board, openness was the order of the day, not seektiveness. >> how was that openness manifested? were they open meetings? was the public invited to come? >> no. the public wasn't open -- wasn't invited to come to the meetings but everything that went on in the meetings was published in various documents and various forms. they had the beige book and had a couple of other books, i don't remember what they are now. it was opened in that regard. secondly, any time you wanted to go visit the federal reserve the doors were open. so they were open in that regard. now, this latest revelation about the secrecy of the federal reserve, i was somewhat surprised. not only was i surprised that

they had made soak secret loans loans, i was surprised by the magnitude of the loans. the only thing i can say is i was shocked because we didn't have those kind of policies. representative ron paul has said in the fed. my position has been fix the fed. because my question is, if you end the fed, what are you going to replace it with? congress has oversight of the federal reserve. but it is not set up where they can politicize the federal reserve. and if you look at other countries woon around the world where the legislative body can influence monetary decisions, they have some of the most messed up economies. now, we are not exactly in great shape but they're the worst when you allow overpoliticization into monetary policy. >> do you think the way that the fed was established and

operates it is needed to keep a check on inflation? >> yes, doy. i do. but i believe in going back to that singular focus and congress should take more of an oversight role. they commissioned the federal reserve. you know, some people want to say that a group of big banks got together and a couple of big rich families got together and established the federal reserve system totally outside the government. no. the united states congress basically established that. now, another question that comes up is confusing to some people. well, who own it is fed? the member banks own the fed. and a large percentage of all banks -- not all banks in the country. banks own it. and in order to join the fed as a member bank and be chartered a as a member bank of the federal reserve, there are certain requirements that banks have to satisfied.

and so they are the ones who own it because the federal reserve has to keep its books like any other company. and in order to be able to take advantage of what they call the federal funds rate that's between banks and between the fed, you have to be a chartered bank, satisfy certain rules and criteria in order to be allowed into it. but thousanding and thousands and thousands of banks are members and that's how we maintain the seamless flow of money across this country. >> the banks that own the fed that are involved in the decisions of the fed then on a large scale they are behind the decision yesterday by the fed to throw in with other central banks across europe to offer the european banks at a very low interest rate u.s. dollars.

we also read that american banks are very skittish. they're sitting on piles of money. they don't want to loan out here in america. right? because of the uncertain business conditions. so how is the businessman supposed to react when he see that is the fed is propping up europe with low interest dollars? >> i don't like it. that's how this businessman responds. here's what's not happening. look, the united states should not be the sole one to try and prevent that crisis in europe. just like in libya. >> you can't bring libya up. >> yes, i can. >> ok. >> you can't bring it up. i i can bring it up. i know that i've been beat up about libya but i know something about libya. take the situation as an

analogy relative to libya. the president said we're going to lead from behind. we expended 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 a bigger leadership role. they should have spent more money to do whatever in order to support the folks that we were trying to support as an example. and so we ended up expending but they had the most to win or lose. refer gee problems that was going to occur they would have to deal with. they should have wanted to try to help impact the outcome. now, the same thing relative to this crisis. who has the most to win or lose? europe. and if i were president, i

would insist that the european countries step up to the plate before the united states would put more of its resources. yes, that would be an impact on the united states because we sell a lot of goods to european countries and vice versa. but i don't think we should be the primary savior of that country. because many of them have been more negligent than we have. relative spending. we are at 100% of gdp which is way too high. we are in trouble. we are walking on eggshells. we need to figure out what we're going to do about ours which is one of the reasons that i decided to run for the presidency because we are not getting, in my opinion, the right leadership on this situation. we have to 100% because of the run away national debt 1r5

trillion and still rising. it is absurd. we are at 100%. some of the other countries are at 120, 125, 150, some of them even at 200%. so they have gone the way that we are headed if we don't stop this train. and so i would be insistent as president that our treasury department, which is the one that would have the authority to print some money to help them out, that they stepped up even though it's going to drive their debt up more they need to take a bigger part in solving their problems rather than it just being perceived as, well, the united states is going to have to step up or the depression or the recession that's going to occur over there is going to impact us. yes, it is. >> but assuming they do kick more money in would you be willing to participate? for example, a lot of european

leaders are saying they want the imf to back up loans to spain and lilt. would you be willing to loan more money to the imf to prevent the other countries from defaulting? >> if we got something for it. and i honestly don't know what that would be. if we got something for it. i believe that's what the american people are saying. we can't just continue to be giving away money and trying to bail people out. if we could get something for it. >> well, i suppose wall street would say that what we've gotten for it immediately is the big spike in the stock market yesterday and therefore everyone's 401(k)s where we went up a phenomenal amount based supposedly on the central's bank's including the fed coming to their rescue. >> that's a temporary small benefit, if my opinion. temporary, small benefit. the stock market can fluctuate if a presidential candidate coughs the wrong way.

did i answer all of your questions? >> yes. i do want to circle back to something i read in the "wall street journal" profile of you last week about where you finally decided to become involved in politics when some guy who happened to be black yelled at you and others going into a meeting with jack kemp black republican must be an uncle tom. >> yes. >> what is it about some liberals not all of them but some that can't understand how a black guy could be a republican? how does it make you feel? >> well, i'll tell you how it made me feel that day. first, it made me feel angry. then it made me feel insulted that i can't think for myself.

that was a feeling that i had. and john mackie, former football player with the baltimore colts, was also in that entourage that day. he was a friend of kemp. >> and i remember when kemp called and said, cain, he would go up on the end of it. he didn't just say cain. cain. i need you to go with me to harlem. >> i said, what? >> yeah, i'm going to the restaurant in harlem. i said why do you want me to go? >> i've got to take some of my black friends with me. i'm not crazy. i said, ok, jack, i'll go. and as we were walking in you had a group of democrats on the left, and republicans on the right, the republicans cheering yea, yea, mr. kemp. on the other side they were basically booing and this sort of thing. they didn't even want jack kemp to come to harlem and have a meeting in the middle of harm. it's called the intimidation

factor. and that's the same factor that causes them to try and intimidate a conservative who happens to be a conservative or republican it's the intimidation factor. don't you dare be a conservative. don't you dare vote republican. through intimidation. not because the liberal democrat agenda has been so successful. it has not been. so it's the intimidation factor. so that stuck with me. for days. and i had moved to nebraska back in 19 86. and it bothered me so much that he was suggesting that i could not think for myself that i was leaving town on the following week after i had gotten back home for the weekend and i knew i was going to pass my voter registration office. i stopped in the office on the

way to the airport heading out of town on a business trip. when i went to nebraska i registered as an independent because i didn't know anything about politics in the state. i thought there were two parties. yes, that prevented me from voting in the primary elections but i thought i would just register as an independent because i was more independent than tied to a party. but on the way out of town i kept thinking about this guy who yelled at me, that's when i redgestrd as a republican. because i refused to be intimidated into being a member of a party or the to think a certain way when we live in the united states of america. .

>> armas it is to me were asking for financial assistance. -- her messages to me for asking for financial assistance. she was out of work. she was not the only friend i had helped in tough economic times. her message is to meet were relating to redo her messages --

her messages to me were related to needing money for rent. she did not have a job. she told me she was not able to get financial help from family and friends. quite frankly, i was the only person who was a friend at the time in a position to help her. i am a soft-hearted person when it comes to that kind of stuff. i have helped members of my church. i have helped members of my family. i know a lot of other people who have done the same thing. she was asking me to help her. quite frankly, it was desperation. sking them were here aksin me. i would respond asking how much and whether she had found a job.

if i decided to help her, i had to let her know that i would help her. yes, i did help her. >> to what degree did you help her? how much money did you give her? >> because of my attorney, i cannot talk about that at this point. it was all financial assistance to help with her bills. my wife did not know about it. that was the revelation and surprise. my wife found out about it when she went public. my wife knows. we have talked about it. i have explained it to her. my wife understands that i am a soft-hearted person. like a lot of men, if she had

been another man that i had help, it would not have raised as much suspicion. >> when did you tell her? why did you not tell your wife during the time it was going on? >> it may appear now that i should have told her about it when it was going on. you are right. retrospect does not change things. " your wife knew that you two were friends? >> she did not know the we were friends until she came out with the story. >> were there any threats in the message is?

>> there were no threats or indications of blackmail. i thought she was a friend. in the of the story. -- end of story. >> it is every successful, well- known man's nightmare for this to happen. given what has been reported about her financial situation and history going back many years, having to cross paths -- how did you cross paths with this woman? >> we met many years ago. i would rather talk about the economy, energy, and those things. we met years ago at a conference. she was one of the organizers. i was a keynote speaker. we struck up a friendship then because she was asking me about her job, her career.

i am very open to talking to people if they asked me about the decisions they are trying to make. it came about at a conference in louisville, ky, many years ago. she had my contact in the nation. she stayed in touch. -- she had my contact information. she stayed in touch. >> what do you suppose she came out of the blue making statements and allegations that would be extremely damaging to you at the time? do you know why she did it? did anyone tell you? why do you think she did it? know for sure,

but i have a strong speculation that someone offered her a lot of money. i was helping her with month to month bills and expenses. this is speculation. somebody offered her a lot of money. one of my objectives is to clear my name and reputation. >> mr. cain, should you have walked before you ran? you are a successful guy on radio in atlanta. should you have sought public office allowed a lower level before going into this maelstrom? -- at a lower level before going into this maelstrom?

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 and right stuff before going for the whole enchilada? >> this may surprise you. no, for two reasons. i have spent most of my career climbing the corporate ladder. i am 65 now. at 65, i did not have time to climb the political ladder. >> newt gingrich is 68. >> that is wonderful. i know that life expectancy is going up, but i may not be the average. how much time did i think i have left was to mark my objective

was to try and have as big of 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. i was on for five years. two years as a full-time substitute. then i had a weekend show. three years prior to running for office, i had a full-time radio show called the "herman cain show. " it was important to talk about the issues every night with my college. doing that forced me to no way -- know way more about the problems the country faced than ever before.

it caused me to become frustrated with the lack of leadership and solid decisions as relates to things like the economy. i know people have run for office before and talk about changing tax codes. my listeners and i were saying we should just throw it out. that is why i came up with the 9-9-9 plan. it was looking at the situation saying, what is the most effective position i could go after even though is a long shot where i could impact driving solutions relative to the national debate? it was those two factors that caused me to say, why not? >> before all of this stuff hit the fan, not just the sexual allegations, but other things, you were resuming -- zooming up

in the polls. you have the bully pulpit to do those things. i do not know where this leads you going forward. you must know about new hampshire. we do not have taxes. we have federal income tax. >> this replaces the federal income tax. >> which part? the sales tax? >> it replaces all of the federal income taxes, including payroll taxes. >> repay the federal income tax but we do not pay sales tax or state sales tax. you are giving us a new tax. >> but remember it will replace the high taxes you are paying now. >> the rate for the federal tax will be reduced to the extent that it will be even with new hampshire people having to pay the national sales tax?

>> by adding in the sales tax this is not on top of. this is replacing it. >> i will have to have my tax guy argue it with you. as an independent, you could not vote in the primaries. in new hampshire, they get to vote. you want to pitch your appeal to republicans and light-minded independents. democrats have to change in advance to become an independent. independent is the largest registration in new hampshire. that man or woman goes in and boats. -- and votes republican or

democrat. they then change back to independent. >> the point i am trying to drive home is if you look at your federal income tax and payroll tax combined, 9-9-9 replaces that. for most people, it is going to go down. if the sales tax -- it is a sales tax, but it is not a state sales tax. >> if someone is paying half of the payroll tax and the company is paying the other, he is paying the federal income tax, what would that be roughly? >> at $70,000 a year for a family of four, i would not know the calculations. >> let's do $50,000. >> it came out about $1,000 less a head on the actual calculations.

>> with your 9-9-9? >> total taxes went down by about 11 houses -- $1,100 when i went through the calculations. it is a complete plan. it is not a modification of the current tax code. that is what makes it so powerful. >> one part is that you would do away with home exemptions. i have read the criticism of that because you intend to do it all at once, in one year. >> when you throw out the tax code, you not only throw out that exemption.

you throw out all the loopholes for everybody. 9-9-9 treats everybody the same. putting in the home exemption does not make sense. >> not putting it in but how you can ratchet it back. >> that is because i am a bold thinker. i propose bold solutions. we have old problems. i know it is risky. that is my nature. what is the problem? how do we best fix the problem? i will take on the challenge of trying to sell the solution. >> let me ask a question about your business acumen. you have said in some of the so- called debates that you have relied on your business acumen

where you might not know the answer, but you have the best staff and rely on the military for the answers. do you think you have been well served by your campaign staff based on some of the problems you have gotten into? >> i believe i have. >> you must have some come to jesus meetings with these people. >> let's take one example. onsome of the political consultants would say we did not handle this well. >> the green bay packers game comes to mind. >> i believe we did for the following reasons. you have to look at these individually. the very first one that broke, we were tipped off by politico.

they were going to do a story. >> there have been other things besides the sexual harassment things. >> we have to make a decision on each of them separately. it is not one size fits all when you get bombarded. they told us they were going to write a story. we did not know what would be in it. you do not respond to an empty bag without knowing what will be in it. i made the decision with my folks to wait until we knew what it was about. they would not give us any documentation. they did not say anything about who it was.

they've just said something is going to hit. it will be involving sexual harassment charges or something like that. until we know what we are responding to, it does not make sense to be on the defense. when it came out, rather than taking toward three days so i could get prepped, and is ready to go out and say what i knew about it from day one. i was vilified because of nuances in the language. i would do it all over again because that is my style. to wait two or three days and allow the news cycle to come to all the conclusions they want to come to, even though i may not have articulated the differences between a settlement and agreement, to me, a settlement means legal settlement. in business, an agreement is

different. this happened 15 years ago. i did not wake up thinking clearly about what happened 15 years ago. i just knew that both charges were found baseless. i said it was not a settlement. by the end of the day, i said there was an agreement. some people said i changed my story. no, i did not. i remembered as the day went on that it was an agreement between that particular employee and the restaurant association. >> it is unfortunate it continues to dominate the conversation. you wanted to have a bold plan relative to business for the country. that gets taken a side. >> let me give you one more example.

the lady who worked with me who got involved with gloria allred was another situation. as soon as i saw who it was, i told my staff i did not know her. i do not remember her name, her voice. she did it on 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 to analyze it. i said we would do a press conference the next day. i was not afraid to go in front of the press. we were criticized for not handling it perfectly. i do not know what that means. it depends on who is criticizing you. >> to follow-up and clarify, and was faithful to be one of the few reporters on your call the other day -- i was thankful to

be one of the few reporters on your call the other day. it left me with the impression that one of the options you were looking out was to get out of the race. mr. gordon sort of diminished the possibility in an email and talking to the media as saying full speed ahead, that people are reading too much into this. is getting out of the race one of the options you are assessing now? >> yes, it is an option. j.d. was trying to say we were not slowing down. we're keeping our commitments. we are reassessing several factors and things. getting out is an option.

that just meant we were not going to put the brakes on until we made a decision. i am reassessing family, supporters, fund-raising, and our strategy. >> your meeting last night downtown with your supporters. >> they have been extremely supportive. >> if your wife asked you to get out, would you be out? >> yes, but 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 would put her first. she is not the type to say, you ought to get out. >> what other factors would be

dire as you reconsider? by next week, we should know your decision. you have something in atlanta, a public appearance. >> we have the grand opening of our georgia headquarters on saturday. no, it would not be saturday. do not try to pin me down. next week. i have my own timetable. >> what other factors could force you out of the race besides family? >> money is the second biggest factor. family is number one. the second critical factor would be if financial backers started

to not want to contribute because they see this cloud not going away. i have not been convicted of anything other than in the court of public opinion. the media drives the court of public opinion. in 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 because they were found baseless. i call them false accusations. they were false. they were not proven. they keep saying sexual

harassment instead of false allegations. some people might say that i cannot get the nomination with this cloud so they're going to stop giving. >> should they look at some of the other candidates like romney or gingrich who have been shown to be on different sides of issues at different points in their lives? >> my only concern is my situation. one thing i have learned in this is that running for president has become a very dirty game. there are three audiences. you have the media class.

not all people in the media are bad. i am not saying that. some are good. some are truly professional. there are some better truly not professional, those that loved to play gotcha politics. media class is a combination of traditional, mainstream, cable, print, internet. that breaks down in a lot of different categories. other media inf there on the internet. liberal sites have not liked me from the beginning because i am conservative. they have not let up. you have the media class. second, you have the political class. these are the people may have held public office or are in public office now. the political class. sometimes the establishment is part of that.

the republican or democratic status -- establishment is part of the political class. the third part is we, the people. i have gotten totally different responses and reactions from those three 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 he cannot get the nomination because of the cloud. maybe. 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. that has always got to be an option. my point is that part of the assessment is, what would drive it going forward? >> nothing is perfect anymore.

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 and town hall and -- >> are rejected the notion -- i reject the notion -- [laughter] >> are you going to try to work past these other two classes and go directly to the people? >> that has been our approach all along. that is why i believe i am resonating. that is why i started going up in the polls. >> do anybody call you to commiserate or hang in there? >> i did talk with one other

person which shall remain nameless, but we were talking about some other substantive issues and then this particular individual made a comment about it and gave me some words of encouragement. >> multiple responses to these allegations as things have unfolded. your campaign manager suggested that the wreck. campaign was -- that the rick perry campaign was behind it. you said yesterday they were attacking my name to bring them down. who is "they'? you mentioned a specific -- you have theories about ms. white. who do you think is behind this? >> we do not know. >> do you have any ideas?

>> the "they" i believe is a network of people who would not like to see me challenge president barack obama as the republican nominee. >> so you think they are democrats? >> i believe some of them are democrats and i believe some of them are republicans. it is not just one side of the aisle. i happen to believe there is a tendency on both sides. >> i want to ask you another foreign policy question. there was voting in egypt yesterday as a result of the arab spring overthrow. the biggest winner by far was the is lamas brotherhood and an extremely conservative sack of the islamic brotherhood. where do you see that as far as

the united states goes in dealing with the mideast? >> it is very dangerous for israel because the general population in each ship -- they do not like israel. mubarak was not allowing the christians to be abused, killed, and taken advantage of. i think it makes for a very dangerous situation going forward with egypt. which means we have to reevaluate our relationship with egypt. we have been providing several billion dollars in aid to egypt primarily because mubarak was maintaining calm between egypt and israel.

well, he is out. we do not know who the new leader will be. if i were president, i would make it real clear that if they do not want to honor the relationship with israel they have had in the past, we are not going to honor the relationship of providing aid that we have provided. they cannot have it both ways. it comes down to economic influence. >> how would you deal with this blockade of the afghani border by the pakistani government? >> you need to make sure we know the facts. they are doing an investigation to determine the facts. that is where i start. for example, we are not sure

that the nato military was not provoked by some early reports. that has to be a part of the whole analysis of where do we go to from here. until we know more about the situation -- i think it is unfortunate that they are going to block some of our supplies going to afghanistan which will create some different pressures in the military. they will figure out a way. they will figure out a way to survive but obviously without being able to bring it to pakistan because it will bring some additional pressures on our men and women over there who are trying to fight. >> vice president joe biden said he had no evidence to suggest that the attack on the british embassy in iran was orchestrated. what do you believe was behind that attack? >> that is one of those

hypothetical hypotheticals with too many uknowns. we know that iran is not our friend. they are an enemy. we know that. the british are our friend. until we know all the facts associated as well as the intelligence that we have, it get back to knowing the facts before saying what you would do. >> they are already freezing assets. >> which is what i would support. >> he would support their actions or you would do the same? >> both. after we did our own analysis. if the british and the europeans have done their analysis and they are ready to impose

sanctions, that is great. i would want to make sure that we were not just following suit, that we did our own analysis and came to a conclusion. >> if mr. herman cain could have a last thought that we could pass to our audience about why you are the man for the job. >> america has become a nation of crises. and 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 to national security and philosophy is an extension of the reagan philosophy.

week lack a lot of clarity with our relationships around the world. piece is our mission. it always has been. the strength comes from military, economic, and moral strength. as we talk about our relationship with libya and the united states, it comes down to economic strength. as long as our economy is not growing, we are not going to have dollars to spend on our military to try and help keep pecace in parts of the world by offering incentives, for the lack of a better word. so we have a national security crisis because everything is it too fragile, and our military is weaker. we have the lowest number of ships in our fleet today since 1950.

second, we have an economic crisis. 14 million people are out of work. anemic growth. the projection for this year is going to be 1.5% or 1.6%. people out of work, 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. just those three things alone. the fact that i recognize the seriousness of those is why i am the man. >> thank you for coming. >> thank you. you guys were very civilized. [laughter]

that is all i ask for. civility. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [laughter] >> there has been a 9% increase

in health care costs. >> like rick perry. [laughter] >> relative to the gdp. i do not remember the exact time frame. national debt. has gone up more than 9% depending on how far back you go. >> do not forget my christmas present. >> i go thtat. great. >> no problem. >> thank you. >> thanks a lot.

>> we take you live now to atlanta where herman cain months ago announced his entry into the race and today will announce the future of his campaign. a blogger with the new york times saying there are about two injured people gathered here in atlanta. some of his aides are saying privately they expect him to

drop out of the race. possibly the first word his staff has got from the candidate today. let's take a look here at the crowd and what is happening here in atlanta. >> -- for herman cain for president, and we are excited to be here. [applause] this is our grand opening of our office today, and we are so honored to have mr. and mrs. cain here. we are excited to have all of our volunteers. people ask me a lot of times what is the difference between herman cain's campaign and others. we are family. we stick together. i have known herman cain for a lot of years. he is a man of character and honor. we are so excited to be with them.

he makes everyone feel special whether you are a waiter or a c o. he is not a politician. he is a problem solver. that is what we need in washington, d.c. we are very excited about what he will say today. be sure to come here and volunteer. we are also accepting volunteers to go to iowa, south carolina, and florida. sign up today and joined the herman cain train. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome senator and honorary

chairman josh mcgoon. >> good afternoon. i want to begin by telling you a brief story. if you weeks ago, i was at a local bookstore in columbus, ga. i was there to buy a copy of the constitution. i went to a new stand to pick it up and there was a hand written note. i went and stood in the line to make my other purchases, got to the cashier, and there was a lady in front of me that was trying to make a purchase. she had to get more money from the car. she took her daughter with her out of the store. the cashier asked how many do you want? i thought, "do i need more than

one?" [laughter] i said," just one." "why do you have these behind the counter?" people were removing the coupons and not buying the papers. about that time, the young woman came back to make her purchase. what was she buying? six copies of the sunday atlanta journal to get the coupons inside. it was a shock to me as to how bad our economic situation in this country is today. this is what this campaign for herman cain is all about. it is a great cause we are engaged in for the republican nomination for the president of the united states. it is about who we are going to choose to move this country forward. we recognize the crisis this

country is facing. we have high levels of unemployment. it is not really reducing. we have the largest budget deficits in our nation's history a debt crisis of unparalleled magnitude. this is deadly serious business we are engaged in. the coverage of this campaign and washington in general largely ignores these very serious problems, so it is up to us, you and me, to get people focused on the candidate for president who has the plan to get our economy moving again. you know what it is. the candidate for president that has the sunny optimism needed in these dark times to make us see

there can be a brighter future for this country and we can be great again. the candidate for president who has the bold vision and the leadership skills to navigate the choppy seas ahead to bring us into the harbor of growth and opportunity. you know who that candidate is. he is herman cain. [cheers and applause] you know, when i decided to get involved in this campaign, i kept going back to a visit i had with a husband and wife who had an ice-cream parlor in georgia. they told me they were having trouble keeping their heads above water with higher taxes, higher health care costs, and regulation stifling every business large and small it made me think how far we had drifted as a country. my grandfather came back from

world war ii with an eighth grade education. they started a little grocery store in columbus. they did not have much, but they worked hard, saved, and they were able to build a life for themselves and their family. they had a son, my dad, who grew up working hard in the growth restorer. he went to college and went to law school and became an attorney and built a life for him and his family. because of them, i am standing here today as an attorney and the youngest member of the georgia senate. that is the american dream. [applause] herman cain's life is an exhibit a in the case for the american dream. [applause] i do not know if the little grocery store at that my

grandparents had it could make it in this america. i do not know if in our current state the next herman cain is somewhere in elementary school today would be able to enjoy the opportunities that led to his success. the question is, are we going to sit back and let the left tell us is over? that we cannot expect the next generation to have a better life than we did it? or are we going to stand up and demand of a candidate for president who will work all day, every day, making this country great again? [applause] i hope that you will join me in raising the herman cain banner in every corner of this state so we can elect the president who is one of loss and will make this nation great again, herman cain.

[cheers and applause] god bless each and every one of you and god bless america loud. thank you. [applause] >> please wellcome, a longtime friend and supporter, dr. king. >> god bless america and god bless you. god bless mr. herman cain and mrs. gloria cain and all of our families. i am so glad to see all of you. my uncle, dr. martin luther king jr., once said it is where he or she stands in time of controversy. the grace and dignity that we see before us today, the

wonderful sacrifice that mr. herman cain is making to offer himself to be president of the united states of america. oh, we are just so blessed to have this man at this historic time. will you pray with me? hallelujah. heavenly father, we thank you for the opportunity to serve you in these days. we thank you for mr. herman cain. there is no better candidate for president of the united states of america. so, we stand with mr. herman cain, with mrs. cain. lord, remember us, remember america, and remember our families, and we will always give you the honor, the caloric, the praise. amen. [cheers and applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, please rise, remove your hats, and join us in welcoming the united states army colonel and recipient of the bronze star and former university of georgia offensive linemen playing on the 1980 national championship team, colonel michael steele. in join him as he leads us in the pledge of allegiance. >> it is great to see this crowd here today. i am very encouraged by seeing all of you today. i am compelled to say with as much clarity as i can so there

is no room for misinterpretation or misrepresentation. i am proud to be an american. [cheers and applause] in a time like these when so many are willing to subjugate love of a nation and national pride, i had a fear they may be called in tolerant. ever again, derisive, or be accused of using hate speech. in times like these, just like you, i stand firmly and i stand proudly on the belief that being an american is something for which i am unrepentant. it is ok to be proud of your

nation cannot locate to be proud of your heritage. the united states of america is special. the united states of america is unique. despite what barack obama says, the u.s. is still number 1. [applause] i would ask that you all join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. sometimes we have said this so often, we never consider what we are saying. i would ask that today you let every single word resonate with you. please follow me. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [applause]

the fact that you are here today indicates that you understand the gravity, the magnitude, the enormity of the issues that are plaguing our nation. it also indicates that you understand the need for an immediate solution. the year 2012 will be a seminal, a pivotal point in this nation's history. it is my opinion that we have one shot left. the way we vote is the way that we go as a country. we got one shot left. there are people are around this nation, some of you here, that are supporting herman cain because he is smart. he is a mathematics major.

that is a novel concept that someone would go to washington, d.c., and actually be able to do math. that will be a first. there are people that believe in herman cain because of his private sector record. there are people supporting herman cain because he is a proven, hands-on leader. i think we could use some leadership. i could list a number of other reasons. all of these reasons are compelling. that is not why the primary reasons why i support herman cain. i support herman cain because i trust him. [applause] now, listen. in the last few weeks, there has

been an awful lot of talking. primarily by people who have not even met herman cain. i am here today because i know herman cain. i know herman cain as a man and i know him as a friend. i cannot think of a stronger way to demonstrate my on wavering trust and confidence in herman cain then my willingness to entrust the lives of my two children who both served on nation in uniform to entrust their welfare to his decisions. [applause] i would ask that you give a very enthusiastic welcome to my good friend, mr. herman cain. [cheers and applause]

♪

♪ >> thank you. ♪

thank you, my friends. ♪ you all are great. thank you, thank you, thank you. i love ya'll, too. [cheers and applause] [crowd chants] [crowd chants "gloria!"]

>> let me first say that, as usual, mccain supporters are not warm weather supporters. and i can't thank all of you done. for what you've how far we've come, and the things we've done. the things that we have been able to achieve. i chose to run for president because of the politicians in washington, d.c., would not do their job. that is why i chose to run. they have failed to provide economic growth, they have

failed to get spending under control, they have failed to make us less dependent on foreign oil. these are some of the reasons that inspired me to run for president. [cheers and applause] and if you look, if you look at the last 40 years, we have seen that same kind of failure. it is just that the myth has just gotten bigger. you were frustrated. i was frustrated. millions of other people were frustrated. it was out of their frustration

when i made the decision to run because the people in washington, d.c., are either playing the blame game or pointing fingers or throwing crumbs to the american people. rather than bold solutions to fix the problem. america deserves more than that. [cheers] since the politicians have continued to fail, i decided to run for president and you all responded as you are responding now. i thank you and i am honored by the deep support of so many people across this country. it expresses the frustration of some many people across this country.

when i made the decision to run, i did not fit the usual description of somebody that ought to be running for president. [cheers and applause] [laughter] i had never held public office before. [cheers] i did not have high name i.d. but right now, my name i.d. is probably 99.9. kajillion't have a dollars. what we learned is that the

voice of the people is more powerful than the voice of the media. secondly, we have learned that message is more powerful than money. [cheers] you know, we proved something else. i grew up in a world of segregated water fountains. my father was a chauffeur. my mother was a maid. we showed that you didn't have to have a degree from harvard in order to run for president. [applause] we showed that you did not have to have a political pedigree to

run for president. and one of the biggest things that we have shown is that, we the people, are still in charge of this country. [applause] so, today, we are one month away from the iowa caucus is. with over 300 million americans in our nation, we stand here, i stand here, because of you. and if you look at the top three republican candidates right now and you consider the president in the white house, we can say i am in the final four. [cheers and applause] we are in the final four.

and when you think of where i right here in atlanta, and now to be in the final four for the presidency, this is a great nation. [cheers and applause] that is why this nation is so great. and i tell you what. it is a powerful and humbling position to be in. that we could do this, was one of the greatest things, one of the greatest gifts that you and i could give to this country. i have often said one of

america's greatest strengths is its ability to change. and we have created some significant change on this journey so far. i am proof of that and you are proof of that. [applause] because i am proved that a common man could lead this nation. because i consider myself one of you. not one of the political elite. i am one of you. our nation is tired of hearing the politicians blame each other. it is time for solutions. but false -- but as false accusations about may continue, they have sidetracked and

distracted my ability to present solutions to the american people. now i have made many mistakes in life. everybody has. i have made mistakes professionally, personally, as a candidate in terms of how i run my campaign, and i take responsibility for the mistakes i have made. i have been the very first to own up to any mistakes i have made. even if the political elite and not think i handled it the exact way the political elite handle it, i handle it my way because that is the person that i am. [cheers and applause] but because of these false and unproved accusations, it has had

a tremendous, a painful price on my family. these allegations continued to be spinned in the media and in the court of public opinion as to create a cloud of doubt over me and this campaign and my family. that spin hurts. it hurts my wife. it hurts my family. it hurts me. and it hurts the american people because you have been denied solutions to our problems. [applause]

[crowd chants "herman!"] now, here's why it hurts. because my wife, my family, and i -- we know that those false accusations are not true. [cheers and applause] so, one of the first declarations that i want to make to you today is that -- [laughter] i am at peace with my god. [cheers and applause]

i am at peace with my wife. [cheers and applause] and she is at peace with me. [cheers and applause] [crowd chants "gloria!"] and i am at peace with my family, and i am at peace with myself, which is one of the most important things. now, that being said, becoming president was plan a. before you get discouraged, today i want to describe plan b. so as of today, with a lot of

prayer and soul searching, i am suspending my presidential campaign. i am suspending my presidential campaign because of the continued destruction -- distraction, the continued hurt caused on me and my family. not because we are not fighters. not because i am not a fighter. it is just that when i went through this assessment of the impact on my family first, the impact on you, my supporters,

whose support has been unwavering, as well as the impact on the ability to continue the necessary funds to be competitive, we had to come to this conclusion. but we had to come to this conclusion that it would be best to suspend this campaign. that is the bad news. here is the good news. the pundits would like for me to shut up, drop out, and go away. well, as my grandmother who lived to be 104 years old used to say, "when somebody was dead

wrong, bless their little hearts." [laughter] i am not going to be silenced and i am not going away. [cheers and applause] therefore, as of today, plan b. plan b. and i call it the cain solutions -- let me explain why. there are three audiences out there, folks, that we have dealt with, that i have had to deal with. there is the media class. the political class. and there's we the people.

[applause] it is we the people that got us to this point, this far. it is we the people that wants change in washington, d.c. we the people are responsible for this massive movement that has gone on across this country. the tea party movement, the conservative movement, a movement that is going to insist on changes in the united states of america. plan b is that i will continue to be a voice for the people. [applause] that is why today we are launching mccainsolutions.com with the people will choose, not the media, not the politicians, and the people will show that the people are still in charge of this country.

through this note -- through this new organization, i will still be promoting the biggest change and transfer of power out of washington, d.c., back to the people since this nation began, and that is the 9-9-9 plan. it is not going away. i will still be actively supporting and promoting a foreign policy that starts with peace through strength and clarity. i will still be promoting actively an energy independence plan for america. we can and we will become energy independent. now, i know that many of you are disappointed. i understand that.

i know that many of you are disappointed, and i certainly understand that. i am disappointed that it came to this point. that we had to make this decision. one of the reasons why i ran for president of the united states was such that i could change washington, d.c., from the inside. plan b is that we are going to have to change it from the outside. it will take a little longer. we are going to have to work a little harder. but we will change it from the outside. one other thing. i will be making an endorsement in the near future. i will be making an endorsement,

and i can tell you right now it will not be the current occupant of the white house. that will not be my endorsement. america has learned something about this process running for president. it is a dirty game. it is a dirty, dirty game. but i happen to believe that the american people -- if i am not the outsider to get there, i happen to believe that the day will come when the american people will reject all of the distractions, all of the false accusations and unproved accusations, and they will make a change because that is what we

have to do to get real change in this country and get it on the right track. as i think about my parents who raised my brother and i right here in the area, they taught us three very valuable lessons that you share. belief in god. belief in ourselves. and believe in the greatest country in the world, the united states of america. and even though i have had to suspend my campaign, i have not given up on america. i have not given up on the u.s. look at our history. when we have been challenged the most. it is when we come at the people, have risen to the occasion the most. i happen to believe that we will

do it again because we, the people, are still in charge of this country. let me leave you with this. i believe these words came from the "pokemon" movie. the media pointed that out. i am sure who the original author is, so do not go right an article about it. it says a lot about where i am with my wife and my family and where we are as a nation. "life can be a challenge. life can seem impossible. it is never easy when there's so much on the line.

but you and i can make a difference. there's a mission just for you and me. just look inside and you will find just what you can do. just look inside, and you will find just what you can do. i've had to look inside to find what i can do. and her's what i can do. here's what we can do. we can put uniteed back in to the united states of america and move the shining city back to the top of the hilltop where it

belongs. i will never apologize for the greatness of the united states of america. god bless you. i love you. thank you. [cheers and applause] ♪

["ain't no mountain high enough" plays] ♪

♪

["we're coming to america" plays] ♪ ♪

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

["life's a highway" plays] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪