nearly 20 million american households use payday lenders. they pay roughly $7.40 billion in fees every year. minisub prime loans during the housing bubble were made by non- bank mortgage brokers. since that are not used to federal oversight, the new program may be a challenge. but we must establish clear standards of conduct so that all financial providers play by the rules. we now have a variety of tools to address the problems facing consumers. we will succeed in our job if financial markets become more fair, more transparent, and more competitive. to make that happen, we need to consult the best data and information weekend to really understand what is happening in the market and how consumers and businesses are faring. we are building a direct relationship with the american consumer. the tell your story function on our website lets people tell us about their personal experiences. that is how we heard about the stories of mary, rebecca, and

others. our team is taking complaints about credit cards and mortgages with other products to be added as we move forward. we deeply believe that we must hear from americans about their experiences in the marketplace, because as john do you once observed, the man who wears the issue knows best that it pinches, and where it pinches, even if the expert shoemaker is the best judge of how the trouble is to be remedied. we are determined to deliver positive results for american consumers. we want people to know what we are doing. our work will support the honest businesses in financial markets against those who deceive customers or otherwise break the law. we are confident that if the public understands our job, that will help us play are important role of safeguarding consumers as well as the broader american economy. we have been extremely fortunate to have strong leadership at the bureau, beginning with my friend

and colleague, elizabeth warren, who conceived of the bureau and began building it from scratch. for the past six months, the dynamic energy spurring our efforts has come for my friend and colleague, now the deputy director of the bureau, whose of leadership has set a strong, will forever guide our our approach. because of the quality to them brought to our team, we will be passionate and caring about the real-life problems of consumers, even as we are analytical and data driven in our approach to dealing with consumer financial markets. as the new director of the consumer financial protection rural, and having been part of this effort for about a year now, i know what an extraordinary privilege it is to work with such a talented and dedicated team. i would have to run very hard to keep up with them. they inspire me deeply, and as you get to know them and their work, that will inspire you also. think back again to the faces of your own family members, the

ones you pictured earlier. like all was, they want to be able to use consumer credit to make their lives better, not worse. that is our goal as well. the financial marketplace can be a potent arena at that helps people find and seize opportunities. it should not condemn them to bewildering failure. by working every day to protect consumers, we will do our part to help fashion a more resilient economy and a stronger country. join us, work with us, help us make it so. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, richard. i am going to ask questions about your appointment and also your work with the bureau. i am going to start with a big one that i think is on everyone's mind. how would you answer your

critics who say your appointment is illegal? >> i have been appointed as the director of the bureau. it is a valid appointment. i believe those details to others. it is big job to protect consumers across the country, and i will be 100% focus on doing that job. >> if you could speak up a little bit. >> is this on? as i said, the appointment is valid. i am now the director of the bureau. the important thing for us, without trying to delve into details, is that we now have the ability to protect consumers across this country on both bank and non-bank issues, and we will be 100% focus. i personally am doing so. >> being double to work effectively with congress seems critical to fulfilling the bureau's mission. how will you be able to work with the congress that does not

seem to like particularly the structure of the bureau, not to mention your appointment. >> i have always had success at the state and local levels of working across the aisle with leaders from both parties. on some hard issues, financial and difficult issues. i expect i will be able to do that here. our bureau intends to do that. i have personally committed to legislative leaders in both parties in both chambers that we will get the information and input they need to help us do our work, and i am committed to doing that. >> let me now turn to the work of the agency. i thought your discussion on the campaign wasou gowe really interesting. to what extent do you believe the agency should alter the design work products offered by financial institutions, as opposed to efforts like the

campaign where you are making sure that the characteristics are properly and understandably disclosed? >> i think we begin with the financial marketplace that we believe was flawed and help lead to a financial crisis that haunt this country greatly. so we begin from an instinct that we want to make prices and risks clear for consumer so that they can make better decisions for themselves, better informed decisions, and take greater responsibility for preparing for their future. that is our initial focus, but as we go, we will deal with situations as they arise. we will carefully analyze the facts and circumstances. we have a research team committed to assessing and looking at market trends in the long run. >> so you do think there is a role for altering the design of products, rather than just making consumers better informed? >> i think consumers need to be better informed.

there are some practices that occurred in a market that are unacceptable and need to be fixed, and we will deal with those as they arise. >> opposition from small banks to your appointment was reportedly mitigated by the belief that your effort would be targeted towards larger financial institutions. the number i saw in the press was something like $50 billion. i was wondering if you could comment on that. is that right, is it not right? is there a number you are looking at in terms of who you are targeting? more generally, how should one think about the relationship between size of an institution and the need to regulate and supervise that institution? >> iconology best for my own experience as a financial officer, treasurer at both the state and local levels, in the run-up to the financial crisis. in my view, it was not community banks, credit unions who created the problems that led to that crisis. they tend to have a community

based business model. they know their customers and work with them on a long-term, repeat basis with the best understanding of what a customer is, someone who is willing to come back to you again and again to do business with you. the problems in the market were created elsewhere. they were created significantly by having non-bank institutions not subject to any meaningful regulation or standards, and they led a race to the bottom. that is true in the mortgage market and some of the other markets as well. in my view, it was not community banks and credit unions that created the crisis. in many ways, it was then being pushed aside by unregulated non- bank that created a lot of the problems. going forward, we will be mindful of that as we approached our job. >> still having trouble hearing? we are trying to address that problem.

do you care to comment on the $50 billion number? is there a line in terms of what financial institutions you will be focusing your effort on? >> dodd-frank through some lines, and drew a line that we will only be supervising and enforcing the law on banks and financial institutions with assets of $10 billion or more. that is a line that a lot of froth. we are not looking to draw additional lines, although we will taylor or supervision program to the needs of different institutions. today as we want turnon bank supervision program, there will be different exigency is an different demands in that sector than there were in the bank sector. it is imported for us to get underway. this is a very important step forward to us and i think that level playing field between banks and nonbanks was a central promise of the statute. now we can move forward and

fulfill that. >> i am turning to an issue that is near and dear to my heart. some analysts are very concerned that limited access to credit is holding back the economy right now. for example, the federal reserve released a report yesterday saying the effect of monetary policy has been blighted by limited access to housing credit. i was wondering whether you are worried that some of the bureau's upcoming actions could restrain credits applied in a way that harms the economic recovery and slows the speed at which unemployed american workers are put back to work. >> my experience gives me a different worry. i think the single event that has limited credit most substantially for americans in my lifetime was the financial crisis of 2008-2009. a lot of the community banks and credit unions were hurt badly by that, and a lot of businesses

and individuals have been hurt by the restricted access to credit. that was caused by the financial meltdown. that meltdown was caused by some of these problems in failing to regulate parts of markets and therefore the bad drove out the good. it is might be that if we do our job well, we will improve these financial markets and they will work better. we will help prevent that kind of catastrophe from occurring again. that will be better for the economy and better for individuals and businesses as well. >> de have procedures in place to assess whether a rule of your thinking about making is going to restrict credit in a way you do not intend? >> there are two things about that. we have inherited a number of regulations from other agencies. one of the projects we are committed to is reassessing those regulations, some of them may not have been thought about for years. where could we streamline regulations to deliver as good

or better value for consumers with less burden for institutions. we think there is an opportunity to do that. as we engage in rulemaking over the years and decades ahead, there is a regular provision in our statute to review the effect of the rules up to five years, or perhaps sooner in some cases. we are very committed to a dialogue with the people that we work with, not just consumers but also the businesses, to understand the real life effects and practical effects of what we do. we have hired people at the bureau had that kind of practical experience of working within industry and understanding how these rules have an effect, not an abstract thing. that will help guide us to deliver the best value for the least cost. >> this raises another issue of one to ask you about. there has been concern expressed about overlap with the bureau and other federal agencies. people worry about redundancy,

turf wars, they were about weather bureau investigations will get in the way of investigations being done by primary regulators. what degree of overlap do you think is, and howdy plan to deal with it? >> this bureau represents a significant step forward in a positive way. we have consolidated the consumer protection functions of multiple agencies into one agency now with a singular focus on that aspect of the financial marketplace. we feel and we know that we have a special responsibility, and primary responsibility to do that, and we will. at the same time, we work in context with other regulators could have the same authority over institutions that we have and have that same authority we have over smaller institutions that we do not supervise or enforce the law against. it makes sense for us and will

be our approach to consult regularly with our fellow agencies, to work closely with them to make sure we are not overlapping or not delivering value for the public that we serve. we have established a tremendous sense of teamwork in our relationship with the federal trade commission in the nonbanks sector. that is one reason we are eager to move forward fully in that sector so we can carry more weight with them. both of us have limited resources. there are a lot of problems to address out there, so we will coordinate closely. we hope will be a model in this respect. >> one more question that goes back to something you said earlier about engaging the stakeholders. you talked about in gauging the public and ways to hear from the public about what challenges they are facing in the credit area. you just spoke a little bit

about ways to engage the financial institutions. i think that is terrific. it is a lesson from the last few years that the world is a far more complicated place than our textbook theories tell us, and some of the disappointed performance of our foreclosure programs reflected the fact that people did not understand the constraints we were actually facing. you did not talk about consumer groups. that is another group that you probably need to hear from when you are trying to design your rules. there are all sorts of reasons to have contact with these people. i wonder if you could just talk a little about that and how to get the balance right. >> it is clear that the consumer

bureau has a big job ahead of it. i view it as a very important job in improving life for the american people, the kind of people i talked about, which are all the people that we know and all the people across this country. everybody is a consumer. we will do our job better when you get a lot of input from people who have insights that you may not have, or who see it from a different angle than you. that includes both financial firms and the trade associations. involves consumers and consumer groups. the thing that helps us avoid regulatory capture in the long run, or any kind of capture, as having a direct pipeline to the individual consumer, who feels free to talk to us about the problems they face, the individual problems they experienced today or this week or this month, and they tell us what the problem is, how it affected them, and then we think about whether there is something we can do to help that. as long as we can maintain that

direct link that we are building now, all the other links are important, but also provide the directive so we do not end up with a skewed view. >> we are going to open things up now and take some questions. just to get things started, if you will stand up and say your name and where you are from, and since we have a limited amount of time, make sure you get your question quickly. that would be terrific. a questionnaire, blue shirt in the fourth row. >> i am with bloomberg news, a devoted follower of your agency. as regards enforcement, one of

the striking things about the work so for the jigsaw for, you have been an enforcer for much of your career, this is one thing you have not gone public with. i would bet there are things call strategic plans or enforcement memos or things like that on your desk that outline where you are going with this. could you give us a more of a sense of how you see that shaping up? you are a michigan state guy. are you going after people from ann arbor? [laughter] >> i grew up and lived near columbus, ohio. we have been building of the bureau, and that is something we have been doing actively over the past year, but choosing staff, training staff, and moving forward. at this point, we are still close to the cradle. we have not issued a single substantial rule. have not brought a single

enforcement action or a single examination report, but we have lots of work in the pipeline geared toward that regular production of products. i will not try to make news on any of those things today. those will be reported publicly when we are ready to report them, and the work is like putting a cake in the oven. you put it in and it takes some time before it makes. but we are actively moving forward on all fronts and will have more to say as these things ripen. >> third row, red tie. >> my name is john taylor with the national committee reinvestment coalition. thank you, mr. cordray, and congratulations on your appointment. i wanted to get back to a question that karen asked about the bipartisan issue and how you have had good success in working across the aisle with different parties. i am trying to understand, given

what has happened to the american economy, very much rooted in all this malfeasance and bad lending that got people in trouble, i do not understand elected official standing in the way of a public agency that is going to clean that up, so that the good actors in the financial-services sector will prevail, and not those who are cajoling are trying to produce product that is unsustainable. could you help me understand that? [laughter] >> what i said was, and it is very much the case, i have had success in working across the aisle on a lot of hard issues. it does not mean i have always had success on every issue, but we have maintained a good working relationship, and i fully expect to do that with the leaders in congress of both parties. they represent the same constituents that we are serving. they are hearing day in and day out, the same stories their

constituents are asking them for help because they are losing their home, or they are drowning in debt, or they have other problems they do not understand or were not adequately explain to them. some of them are referring those issues over to us. we really have the same interests at heart. i am not someone who impugns people's motives. i do not think that is helpful. i tend to assume that people are always trying to do what they think is right. we may just disagree at times on what that is. i am going to work for and build a relationship with congress. we will disagree on some issues. that is to be expected within the bureau. my friends and colleagues disagree all time, but we work through those things and go forward. we should develop our independent relationship with the congress and i am personally committed to doing that, and i think we will do that. >> i am joe williams with

politico. congratulations. not to belabor the point, but i want to go back, because you have a congress that right now is talking about legally challenging your ability to take power, that is talking about we don't even think this is a legitimate agency, we are going to go to court and try to sue. nothing personal, of course, but they are really opposed to doing this. what is your strategy for that? building relationships is one thing, but combating people who are dead set against this bureau even taking flight is another. i would like to hear you talk a little more about that. >> as you know, it is somewhat surprising, issues about my nomination have not become personal. i have never taken any of it personally. it is just a process, and that is what it is. let me just say that the most important thing we can do as a

bureau is keep our nose to the grindstone and keep doing our work. i think the work we are doing is so important and make such a difference for people in this country that as we attack this problem, as we offer a solution or improvement to that problem, we will prove our own case, both to the people who represent the public and the public at large. there is already a tremendous support among the public at large for a consumer watchdog. they get. they understand and many of them have examples from their own lives that they are very familiar with, a family member or friend that they can see why this is important and necessary. i think the leaders in congress, even those who may have disagreed with some of the premises of the statute or the authorities of the bureau will begin to see that over time, if we do our work well. to me, the only issue here is doing our work, doing it as well as possible, making sure people understand what we are doing, and over time i think it will

win its way. >> let's go to the back of the room, on the left, back row. >> i just wanted to ask, given that everyone is predicting there will be some sort of legal challenge and there are those out there who disagree with the legal reasoning behind doing the appointments this way, will that have you hesitate or proceed more hesitantly than you might otherwise, given that there could be challenges in the future? >> the answer to that question is no. i do not say that in a militant are challenging way, but the law of the land gives a certain

responsibilities, important responsibilities that matter to the people of this country that we carry them out. with the director in place, we now have our full authority to move forward. we will do that. i think that as we do our work and focus on doing our work, which is what i am going to do with 100% of my energy and time and effort, we will begin to demonstrate to people further, as i think we have already begun to demonstrate already, why this work is important and needs to be done. again, i think congressional leaders will see. they represent the same people that we do. they speak to endure from the same people who are talking to us about their problems. as we can do better on those problems and help improve things, i think we will wind our way forward. >> bruce smith from brookings.

do you have a state regulatory background? it concerns me that we have substituted week federal regulation for potentially much more effective state regulation. i think somehow countrywide mortgage could've been handled at the california level had we not pre-empted state regulation by the glass-steagall legislation in the late 1990's. could you speak to that briefly? >> i used to teach public administration. perhaps i am not correctly informed, but it used to be axiomatic that you do not run an operating function out of the executive office of the president. if your agency of government, you should be out away from the executive office of the president, have your relationships with the congress, present your budget to the congress, interact without being enmeshed in the central function of the executive office

of the president. could you speak briefly to that, please? >> as i think you know, the thing that prevented us from developing an independent agency up until now was that we were blocked from having a director. without a director, reported to the department of treasury. we have worked on establishing our relationship over the last six months, but as of today we are now free of that. we are an independent agency and we will build a relationship with congress, which is how all of the independent agencies do over time. at the same time, we will work with officials on different issues. we have worked with members of congress and will continue to do so. we worked with the treasury to burma, the justice department and others where that is appropriate and helpful. we now have zero or own mission to chart and we will do that. as the federal state relationship and cooperation is spoke of, i actually know something about it.

i strongly believe the states have a very meaningful role to play in enforcing the law to protect consumers. at the same time, i can tell you that at the state level, i often felt frustrated, and the contours' of my authority often blocked me from doing things that i thought could have been helpful to the citizens are represented, so having the authority we now have as a federal bureau to address these issues i think is meaningful. it is an important step forward. it was lacking before. there's not focus on consumer protection that the federal level in the financial sector, and such focus as there was was often constrained by very limited resources. we will have a partnership with state and local officials. we already are doing that in our supervision program. we are coordinating with them. we are working well and effectively with state attorneys general. sometimes they will take the lead on some things and

sometimes we will take the lead. sometimes we may jostle a bit, but it will be in a friendly way, because we have the same goal in mind, which is what helps the american consumer, the american marketplace, and ultimately the american economy. it will make this country better, i firmly believe that. >> we have time for just one more quick question. the front row, right here. >> i am with northern trust. a follow-up question to what karen raised earlier about the intersection between the cftc and the other regulatory agencies. we are concerned about potential regulators and the safety and soundness issues about rules that come out, etcetera, and how that will overlap with the rulemaking of the cfpb.

>> it is inouye relationship. we are a new agency, the new kid on the block. we are all trying to find our way. i am sure the other agencies are as concerned as we are about developing the right relationship. we are trying to build good communication back and forth, and learning to work together so we work through some of the awkward this or newness of this and build a cooperative relationship that has our eye on the right ball, which is what i can do to fulfill our mission and serve the public that we all represent together. i am not saying that is entirely uncomplicated. there are difficulties in that, but if we communicate well, we will avoid duplication, overlap , and disagreements that can be ameliorated. that is important for us to do. everybody should expect that of us, and we expect of ourselves. but it will take time for us to

develop that relationship so everyone is comfortable with one another. >> we are at of time. richard, i would like to thank you so much for coming to speak to us. [applause] i wish you the best of luck with your new role. it is so important. if the folks in the audience would do 1 favre, please stay in your seats while director cordray leaves -- do me one favor. that would be terrific. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we are in new hampshire covering political events leading up to tuesday's first elimination primary. two live events this evening here on c-span.

newt gingrich will speak in new hampshire at 7:00 p.m. eastern. at the same time on c-span2, the gop committee in nashua and have invited all the major candidates to be represented be -- before the final primary. john sununu and mary kay huntsman, the wife of john hudson, will speak. also tonight on c-span3, you can watch past speeches from presidential primary campaigns, at 8:00 p.m. eastern. president obama released his new defense strategy today. it includes a smaller military force and weapons programs. leon panetta spoke to reporters this morning and said that the pentagon is making the changes because of the nation's budget deficit. specific cuts will be outlined in the president's fiscal 2013 budget proposal.

this is 50 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. the united states of america is the greatest force for freedom and security that the world has ever known. that is because we have built the best planes, best equipped military in history. way.oing to keep it that

all of us on this stage have a profound irresponsibility to every soldier, sailor, airman, marine and a coast guardsman who puts their life on the line for america. we owe them strategy to only send them into harm's way when it is necessary, to give them the support that they need to get the job done, and to care for them and their families when they come home. that is our obligation. is what we've done. we have continued to make historic investments in our military and our veterans. we have ended our war in iraq. we decimated al qaeda's leadership. we have put that terrorist

network on the path to defeat. we have made important progress in afghanistan. we joined allies to protect the libyan people as they ended the regime of muammar gaddafi. now we're turning the page on a decade of war. we had some 180,000 troops in iraq and afghanistan. more of our troops will continue to come home. we have strengthen alliances, ford's new partnerships and served as a force for universal rights and human dignity. we have succeeded in defending our nation, taking the fight to our enemy, reducing the number of americans in harm's way and we have restored america's

global leadership. that makes us safer and stronger. that is an achievement that every american, especially those americans who wear the uniform of our armed forces should take great pride in. this success has brought our nation to a moment of transition. the tide of war is receiving. we have the opportunity and the responsibility to look ahead to the force that we will need in the future. we have to renew our economic strength here at home, the foundation of our strength around the world, and that includes putting our fiscal house in order. the budget control act passed by congress last year with the support of republicans and

democrats mandate reductions in federal spending including defense spending. i have insisted we do that responsibly. the security of our nation depends on that. that's what i call for this defense review, to clarify our strategic interests and to guide our defense priorities in spending. the size and structure of our military has to be driven by a strategy, not the other way around. we have to remember the lessons of history. we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes that were made in the past when our military was left ill-prepared for the future. i will not let that happen again, not on my watch.

we need a smart, strategic set of priorities. a new guidance that the defense department is releasing today it does just that. i want to thank the service secretaries and chiefs and so many defense leaders, actor guard and reserve, for their contributions. many of us met repeatedly, challenging our assumptions and making hard choices. we come together today around an approach that will keep the military the finest the world has ever known. this review and benefits from the contributions of the leaders acrostic national security team, as well as the

intelligence community. meeting the challenges of our time cannot be the work of our military alone, or the united states alone. we have to work together in concert with our allies and our partners. i will let leon and marty tell you about the details. the tide of war is receding. what kind of military will we need long after the war's are over? today we're fortunate to be moving forward from a position of strength. we will be strengthening our presence in the asia-pacific. budget reductions will not come as a result of a critical region. nato has demonstrated that it is a force multiplier.

we'll stay vigilant, especially in the middle east. as we look beyond the wars in iraq and afghanistan, will be able to insure our security -- we will continue to get rid of outdated cold war-era systems, so we can invest in character terrorism, countering weapons of mass destruction, and the ability to operate in environments where adversaries triumphed. yes, our military will be leaner. but the united states will maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies

and threats. we will make sure our troops have the equipment and capability so they can succeed. we will focus on wounded warriors and mental health. we will keep working to give our veterans the care and the benefits and job opportunities that they deserve and they have earned. finally, i want to close with a word about the defense budget that will flow from the strategy. the details will be announced in the coming weeks. some will say the spending reductions are too big. others will say they are too small. it will be easy to take issue with a particular change our program.

remember what president eisenhower once said. each proposal must be weighed -- the need to maintain balance among programs. as we rebuild the source of our strength, it is time to restore the balance. it is important for americans to remember that since 9/11, our defense budget grew at a large pace. the growth will slow over the next 10 years, but it will still grow because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership. the defense budget will still be larger than it was at the end of the bush administration. we can keep our military strong

with a defense budget that continues to be larger than the next 10 countries combined. i want to thank secretary panetta, chairman dempsey and all the defense leaders who are on this stage for their leadership and their partnership throughout this process. our men and women in uniform give their very best to america every single day. they deserve the very best from america. i thank all of you for the commitment to the goal that we all share, keeping america strong and secure and keeping our armed forces the very best in the world. overturn this discussion to leon and to marty who can take your questions. i understand this is the first time a president has done this.

thank you. >> i am all set. let me begin by thanking president obama for coming here

to the pentagon this morning and also in particular to thank him for is the vision and leadership as this department went through a very intensive review that we undertook to try to develop the new strategic guidance that we're releasing today. in my experience, this has been an unprecedented processed to have the president of the united states participate in discussions involving the development of the defense strategy and to spend time with our service chiefs and with our combat commanders to get their views. this guidance that we are releasing today and which has

been distributed throughout the departments, it does represent a historic shift to the future. it recognizes that this country is at eight strategic turning points. after a decade of war and after a large increases in defense spending. as the president mentioned, the u.s. military mission in iraq has now ended. we do have progress in afghanistan which is tough and challenging. we're beginning to enable a transition to afghan security responsibility. the nato effort in libya has concluded with the fall of muammar gaddafi. and now as these events are occurring and congress has mandated by law that we achieve

significant defense savings, so clearly we are any turning point. even as our military campaigns recede, the united states still faces complex and a growing array of security challenges across the globe. unlike past drawdowns when oftentimes the threats that the country was facing went away, there remain a number of challenges that we have to confront. challenges that call for reshaping of america's defense priorities, focusing on the continuing threat of violent extremism, which is still there and still to be dealt with, proliferation of lethal weapons and materials, the destabilizing behavior of

nations like iran and north korea, the rise of new powers across asia, and the dramatic changes that we have seen unfold in the middle east. all this comes at a time when america confronts a very serious deficit and debt problem here a home, a problem which is itself a national security risk that is squeezing the defense and domestic budgets. as we face these considerable pressures, including the requirement of the budget control act to reduce defense spending by what we have now as $487 billion over 10 years, i do not believe that we have to choose between our national

security and fiscal responsibility. the department of defense will play its part in helping the nation put our fiscal house in order. the president has made clear and i have made clear that the savings that we have been mandated to achieve must be driven by strategy and must be driven by progress analysis, not by numbers alone. consequently over the last few months, we have conducted an intensive review to try to guide defense priorities over the coming decades. all this in light of the strategic guidance that we received in discussions with the president and the recommendations of this department senior military and civilian leadership, both of them provided those kinds of

recommendations. this process has enabled us to set priorities and to make some hard choices. the department would need to make a strategic shift regardless of the nation's fiscal situation. we are at that point in history. that's the reality of the world we live in. this crisis has forced us to face the strategic shift that is taking place now. as difficult as it may be to achieve, this has given all of us in the department of defense the opportunity to reshape our defense strategy and force structure to more effectively meet the challenges of the future, to shape the security environment, and to decisively prevail in any conflict.

i set out to insure that this strategy review would be inclusive. we met with department leaders including our undersecretaries, the service chiefs, the service secretaries, the combat commanders, our senior enlisted advisors. we discusses with the president and his national security advisers, members of congress, and outside experts. there were four principles that guided our process. we must retain the world's finest military that sustains the global leadership role of the united states. we must avoid hollowing out the force. a small equipped military is much more preferable to a larger, ill-prepared force that has been arbitrarily cut across the board.

savings must be achieved in a balanced manner with everything on the table, including politically sensitive areas that will likely provoke opposition from parts of the congress, industry, and from advocacy groups. that is the nature of making hard choices. we must preserve the quality of the volunteer force and not break faith with our men and women in uniform or their families. with these principles in mind, i will focus on some of the significant strategic choices that are being made. the united states military will remain capable across the spectrum. will continue to conduct a complex range of missions

including countering weapons of mass destruction to maintaining a safe, secure nuclear deterrent. we will be fully prepared to protect our interests and support civil authorities. our goal to achieve the u.s. force for the future involves the following significant changes. first, the u.s. joint force will be smaller and it will be leaner. but its great strength will be that it will be more agile, more flexible, ready to deploy quickly, innovative, and technologically advanced. that is the force for the

future. second, as we move towards this new joint force, we're also rebalancing our global posture and presents, emphasizing the pacific and the middle east. these are the areas where we see the greatest challenges for the future. the u.s. military will increase its institutional weight and focused on power projection and deterrents in asia/pacific. this region is growing in importance to the future of the united states in terms of our economy and our national security. this means improving capabilities that maintain our military's technological edge and freedom of action. the united states will place a premium in maintaining our military presence and capabilities in the broader middle east. the united states must remain capable of defeating aggression

well supported political progress and reform. the united states will continue to strengthen its key alliances to build partnerships and to develop innovative ways to sustained u.s. presence elsewhere in the world. the long history of close political cooperation with our european allies and partners will be critical to addressing the challenges of the 21st century. we will invest in the shared capabilities of nato, our most effective military alliance. the force posture in europe will of necessity continue to adapt and evolve to meet new challenges and opportunities, particularly in light of the security needs of the continent relative to the emerging priorities that we face elsewhere.

a're committed to sustaining presence that will meet our article 5 commitments, deter aggression, and the military will work closely with our allies to allow for the kinds of college and operations that nato has undertaken in libya and afghanistan. in latin america, africa, we will use innovative methods to sustain u.s. presence, and attaining keep military relations and pursuing new security partnerships as needed. we will develop low-cost and small footprint approaches to achieving our security objectives, emphasizing rotational deployments,

emphasizing exercises, military exercises with these nations, and doing other approaches to maintain a presence throughout the rest of the world. as we shift the size and composition of our ground, air, and naval forces, we must be able to confront and defeating any aggressor and respond to the changing nature of warfare. our strategy review concluded that the united states must have the capability to fight several conflicts at the same time. we're not confronting the threats of the past. we're confronting the threats of the 21st century. that demands greater flexibility to shift and deployed forces to be able to fight and defeat any enemy anywhere. how we defeat the enemy may very well vary across conflicts.

but make no mistake -- we will have the capability to confront and defeat more than one adversary at a time. our military will never be doing only one thing. it will be responsible for a range of missions across the globe, of varying scope and strategic parity. this will place a premium on flexible forces that can respond quickly and effectively to a variety of contingencies and potential adversaries. that is the nature of the world's that we're dealing with. the united states will emphasize building the capacity of our partners and allies to more effectively defend their

own territory, their own interest, through better use of diplomacy, development, and security force assistance. with the end of u.s. military commitment in iraq and the drawdown that is already under way in afghanistan, the army and marine corps will no longer need to be sized to support the kind of large-scale stability operations that have dominated military priorities over the past decade. we will protect and in some cases increase our investments in special operations forces in new technologies like isr and unmanned systems, in space and

in cyberspace people bill is, and also our capacity to quickly mobilized if necessary. these investments will help the military maintain to continue to refine the expertise and capability that have been gained at such great cost over the last decade. most importantly, we will structure the reductions in the nation's ground forces in such a way that they can search -- surge, regenerate and mobilize in response to any contingency. the ability to quickly mobilize will be key. that means re-examining the mix of elements in active and

reserve components. it means maintaining a strong national guard and reserves. it means retaining a healthy cadre of officers and the nation's defense industrial base. the strategic guidance we are providing is the first step in this department's goal to build a joint first for 2020, a force shaped differently from the military of the cold war, post- cold war force of the 1990's, and the force that was built over the past decade to engage in the large-scale ground wars. this strategy and vision will guide to be more specific budget decisions that will be

finalized and announced in the coming weeks as part of the president's budget. in some cases, we will be reducing capabilities that we believe are no longer a top priority in other cases, we will invest in new capabilities to maintain a decisive military edge against a growing array of threats. there is no question that we will have to make some trade- offs. we will be taking some level of additional, but acceptable risk in the budget plan we released next month. these are not easy choices. we will continue aggressive waste, to week ouweed out consolidate our duplicate its

operations. budget reductions of this magnitude will impact the size and capabilities of our military. as i said before, trued national security cannot be achieved through strong military alone. it requires strong diplomacy. it requires strong intelligence efforts. it requires a strong economy, fiscal discipline, and effective government. the capability readiness and agility of the course will not be sustained if congress fails to do its duty and the military is forced to accept far deeper cuts, in particular be arbitrary, across the board cuts that are scheduled to take effect in january of 2013 through the mechanism of a

sequester. that would force us to shed missions, commitment, and capabilities we believe are necessary to protect core u.s. national security interests. it will result in what we think will be a demoralized and hollow force. it is not something we intend to do. finally, i would like to also address our men and women in uniform and the civilian employees who support them. i know they have been watching the budget debates here in washington with concern about what it means for them and for their families. you have done everything this country has asked you to do and more. you have put your lives on the line and you have fought to make our country safer and stronger. i believe the strategic

guidance honors your sacrifice and strained his the country by building a force equipped to deal with the future. i have no higher response ability than fighting to protect you and to protect your families. just as you have -- just as you have fought and bled to protect our country, i commit to you that i will fight for you and for your families. there is no doubt that the fiscal situation this country faces is difficult. in many ways, we are at a crisis point. i believe in every crisis there is opportunity. out of this crisis, we have the opportunity to end the old ways of doing business and to build a modern force for the 21st century that can win today's

wars and successfully confront any enemy and respond to any threat and in the challenge for the future. our responsibility, my responsibility as secretary of defense, is to protect the nation's security and to keep america safe. with this joint force, i am confident that we can effectively be thinned the united states of america. thank you. the-successfully defend -- nine successfully -- successfully defend the united states of america. thank you. >> it is my responsibility to keep america immune from coercion. the strategy described by the secretary of defense enables us to complete that responsibility.

this strategy emerges from a deeply collaborative process. we took insights from within and outside the department of defense from the intelligence community and other governmental departments. we challenged every assumption. we considered a wide range of recommendations and counter argument. the steps we have taken to arrive at this strategy involved all of this and much more. the strategy also benefited from an exceptional amount of attention from our senior military and civilian leadership. on multiple occasions we held all day and multi-day discussions with service chiefs. the service chiefs are challenged with developing the strategy. they were hurt early and often. the commanders charged with

executing the strategy weighed in time and time again. we were afforded extraordinary access to the president and the secretary of defense. the breath of dialogue to arrive at today's strategic forces were necessary and noteworthy. this is not the end. it is a point to develop that a joint force for 2020 that the secretary just described. there are four budget cycles. each of these present an opportunity to address how and what we do to achieve this new strategy in the face of new threats in the context of a new security environment. it ensures we remain the preeminent military in the world. it preserves the talent of the all volunteer force. it takes into account the

lessons of the last 10 years of war. it acknowledges the imperative of a global network and full spectrum joint force. it responds to the new fiscal environment. as a learning organization, even if we did not have human resources, we would expect to change. -- fewer resources, we would expect to change. it rebalancing our focus. it makes important investments in emerging and improving capabilities like cyber and special operations. much will be made on whether this strategy moves away from a structure designed to fight and win two wars simultaneously. fundamentally, our strategy has always been about responding to global contingencies win and wherever they occur. this will not change.

we always provide a range of options for our nation. we can always do more than one thing at a time. whatever we have confronted and in whatever sequence, we will win. we accept some risks in this strategy, as all strategies must. these risks will be measured in time and capacity. we should be honest. we could face even greater risks if we did not change from our current approach. i am pleased with the outcome. it is not perfect. there will be people who think it goes too far. others will say it did not go far enough. robin makes it about right for today. it gives us what we need -- that makes it about right for today. it prepares us for what we anticipate we will need in 2020. this is a real strategy. it represents real choices.

it has real buy in among our leadership. this is a strategy and a joint force on which the nation can be banned. r -- nation can depend. these are tough economic times. this strategy requires some tough decisions. i want to thank president obama and secretary panetta for their leadership throughout this process. the new test will be in execution. the young men and women who will be charged to carry out the lion share of this strategy know something about leadership, too. it is the cornerstone of our profession. for the past 10 years, they have done nothing but lead under the most difficult circumstances imaginable. it is for that reason above all

others that i am convinced and fully satisfied that this strategy will meet our nation's needs for the future. thank you. >> we will have a chance for a few questions. i will field adults. will wi; e that, -process field that. why don't we start on questions. >> this document says and the president himself said that the military will get smaller. the question is, how much smaller? how much are you proposing to cut the army and the marine corps and in what period?

is that another way of saying it will get cut? >> as we said in the policy statement and the president referred to its. marty referred to it as well. we are going to have a smaller and meaner force. what those numbers are will be part of the budget that will be presented by the president. at that time we will reveal what those final decisions are as to the exact size. under any circumstances, we are looking at a drawdown as a result of the end of the war. hopefully, the end of the transition in afghanistan. budget constraints require that in addition to that, we have to develop a smaller and leaner force, but one that has to be more flexible, innovative, and

creative. with regard to europe, we will maintain our commitment with europe. we will maintain our article five requirements. we will be able to deter aggression. we want to build our partnerships there. one of the things we have made clear with them is that not only are we going to continue our commitments there, we are going to develop the kind of innovative presence that we think will make clear to europe and to those that have been our strong allies in the past that we remain committed to protecting them. >> can i elaborate on the european question? the strategy talks about a shift to the future. all of the demographic trends, deal political trends, economic and political trends are shifting- -- geopolitical

trends, economic trends are shifting to the pacific. our strategic challenges are shifting. we have to pay attention to the s those. we have to focus on our strategic partnerships. nato is part of them. we will be in dialogue with them about what it means. >> if you could clarify a statement you made in your remarks. we will have the capabilities to confront and defeat more than one adversary with the guidance. despite one regional conflict and what would be a holding action in a second regional conflicts. are those two consistent?

>> the structure for making defense decisions looking at the past as well as the president has always been, can the united states confront enemies, aggressors, more than one and be able to defeat them? that remains the fundamental question. can we confront and defeat in the enemy that faces us? the answer to that question is, with the joint force we are creating here, we can. we can confront more than one in at a time. the nature of warfare today is that as you engage, you have to look at how you do it, what forces do you use to confront that enemy, what exactly is involved? it could face a land war in korea and face threats in the straits of hormus.

z? . >> in iraq and afghanistan, it cannot fight to defeat an enemy in two theaters at a time? >> the bottom line of what we are seeing happen is that we just ended the mission in iraq. our you -- our view is that we are in the process of achieving that. >> mr. secretary, the president said you will be getting rid of outdated, cold where systems. can you get any sense of what kind of systems? >> the budget drop at the end of the month will eliminate programs that have been adjusted

or terminate it and others that have been reinforced. back to the question of can we do two wars? the two war paradigm has been a bit of an anchor for helping us figure out the future. it is not about whether we will fight adversaries as they confront us. what are the outdated systems and processes and programs? that is the risk that we continue to do to determine the howl of its without tying ourselves to a paradigm that is a residual of the cold war. >> mr. secretary, will it efficiency be enough to reduce personnel costs? if you take an honest look on what you spend per man in the

military, are you going to have to reduce retirement benefits and ask service members to pay more for their health care? >> the specifics will be provided in the present's budget. it will be released in the next two or three weeks after the present's state of the union address. let me be clear. i felt it was important that everything be on the table and we lacked at a number of areas to achieve our savings. we need to develop the kind of defense force we need for the future. yes, we look at deficiencies -- effenciencies. my predecessor began that process. we continue as part of this budget. that is a significant part of the budget that we have worked

on. two, we have to look at the whole area of procurement and weaponization. there are tremendous costs associated with those areas. we want to make sure the weapons meet the needs of the defense force we are building. that was an area that was reviewed. thirdly, the area of compensation. that has been an area that has increased in terms of costs. we want to maintain the quality of benefits that go to our troops and their families. that is a key read line for us. we are going to maintain those. we have a responsibility to control costs in those areas as well. that is part of what we will present as part of our budget. all of those pieces are part of the budget. you will see the decisions associated with that when the budget is revealed. >> don't cheat more questions. -- two more questions.

>> what is the response you have been getting from congress? deluge at some other actions will need to be taken -- do you think some other actions need to be taken? >> i have made it a point -- we have all made it a point -- to stay in close consultation with the members of congress that we deal with in the key committees. i spend time sitting down with them and their members, briefing them on discussions we at had, briefing them on dispense -- defense strategy. i briefed the chairman as well. all of them recognize the challenge we are facing. all of them recognize how tough

these decisions are. all of them also recognize that we can do this in a way that will protect our national defense and that establishes a defense force for the future. bill solid confidence that as we work through this and ask -- i am confident that that we work through this, there are going to be members who will not clearly support some of the decisions. that is the nation -- the nature of making hard choices. we have based this on a policy of saying, this is the kind of the athens bourse we want for the future. within that framework, if we can all stick to that and if we can all use that as the bases and the foundation for the debate that is going to take place, is

so confident that congress will support what we are trying to do. >> let me follow up on what david martin just asked. the strategy talks about moving away from fighting two land wars simultaneously. you mentioned the tensions in the persian gulf. they are fighting a ground war in afghanistan until 2014. are you saying fighting a land war in the persian gulf is off the table as a result of this new strategy? >> i want to make sure i get a shot at this one. the secretary of defense said we are not going to fight another land war and i had the west point class of 2014 at my door. we have to conduct military activities across a full spectrum. nowhere in this document does it say we are not going to fight land wars.

it doesn't say we are not going to do stability operations. it says we have to be capable of conducting operations across the full spectrum. it is risk, reverse ability. those are the issues week -- you to it is risk, reversability. those are the issues. it would be wrong for you to walk away with the impression that we are going to niche ourselves and declare ourselves a global power. >> what about iran as a result of this new strategy? >> the message we have for iran is that we expect them to be a responsible member of the community of nations, not to deny freedom of navigation, freedom of movement, freedom of access. we are determined they will not acquire a nuclear weapon. >> you said you are committed to

maintaining the quality of benefits. that seems to leave room to reduce the quantity of benefits. will there be cuts in future benefits for our armed forces in the coming budget? >> that is something that we will present as part of the president's budget. i want to make clear that we are going to protect the quality. we are going to protect benefits that are provided to our troops and to their families. at the same time, as i said, we have some responsibility to try to control costs in this area. the troops understand we have to control those costs. when it comes to their basic benefits, the retirement benefits of those who have served, when it comes to the benefits that we provide for their families, we are going to continue to provide that faithfully. >> what about the future?

>> it will be about 7 or 8 minutes while we sat up. >> a look now at campaign coverage this evening. former house speaker newt gingrich will be in meriden, new hampshire. we will have that live at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. c-span 2 will be live at the same time. we will have some representatives of the major campaigns. it will include former national security adviser bud mcfarlane. on c-span.org 3, passed new hampshire primary speeches. that is an 8:00 eastern.

washington journal is in new hampshire this week. we talked about a recently released harvard study of young voters. host: joining us now is the director of the harvard institute for politics. we will show our viewers the

front page of the study. it is a survey of power and politics. what is the headline that you discover in this survey? guest: young americans are pessimistic about the future of their country. that is having a big impact on their views of the president and congress and their willingness to participate in the upcoming election. host: when you say they are pessimistic, are they and tied the president or more -- anti the president? guest: these voters played a pivotal role and are given credit for supporting president obama. they support him over generic republican or specific republicans we polled.

when we asked them if they think the president is going to win, a plurality says no. they are pessimistic about his chances. if we ask them if they approve of the president's performance in office, he is under water. more people disapprove of his performance been approved. 51% disapproval rating. that is the lowest number. since he became the president. host: here is the generic ballot. president obama purse is a generic republican. the republican gets 29%. how does that compare to that years ago? guest: off of the top of my head, i cannot give you the specific number. it was 2 to 1.

there was a bigger margin. his margin over john mccain was larger than john kerry's margin over george w. bush. more were turning 18 and a higher percentage were showing up -- was showing up to voted. they played a big role in his win. host: do you think days in the nation are on the wrong track or the right track -- the nation is on the wrong track or the right track? what does that portend for the 2012 election? guest: if you are president obama and you look at these folks, who are part of his base, you see this and you see the numbers where they are asked what is their top priority and how they think president obama is doing in performance and running our economy, 1/3 say a good job.

others say not a good job. my concern if i am present obama or david axelrod who is running the campaign, i say, how can i get them to the polls? are they going to volunteer like they did four years ago. i need to get out and spread the word and show up at the polls. there could be a motivation problem. it is not as if they are going out to support mitt romney or rick santorum. they might stay home, but not volunteer. that is a concern if i am be president. host: what is a millennial? guest: the demographic people define it differently. we defined it as anybody born

between 1980 and 2000. 18-30 year-olds. it is everybody in that generation. it is the largest generation in the history of the world. these are the children of the baby boomers. as they are hitting the workforce and hitting the political world as voters, as activists, they are changing everything. it is something that we started studying 10 years ago with our own students helping us put together the survey to find out what they are interested in learning about. it has been a fascinating process. we are in our 20th survey. host: we have set aside our line for millennial. trey grayson is our guest. he is the director of the

harvard institute of politics. guest: i was the secretary for kentucky for two terms and i ran unsuccessfully for senate. host: speaking of millennial and the palm family, a lot of the ttraction to a -on pau-- paul family, a lot of them are attracted to rand paul. guest: congressman paul got over 40% of all of the millennial to voted. that set a pretty big role. getting almost half of the 18-29 year olds. that was part of his coalition. if you go to his rally, you see a lot of young people.

you see young people volunteering. you see it on college campuses. young people are big fans of ron paul. they played a big role in his rise. host: on the republican side for many ills -- delay the else -- millenials, mitt romney leads with 23%. if you take herman cain out of the equation, mitt romney goes to 25%. newt gingrich goes to 17%. michele bachmann, who is out of the race, is pulling at 15%. let's take some calls on this new harvard institute study. birmingham, alabama. olivia, you are on the line. ls are: millennia

going to stay with president obama. the republicans are not offering anything to young people. i think young people need to become more involved in politics themselves. they need to learn the process. i am 65 years old. i am sick and tired of a lot of elderly white men. we need a lot of young people regardless of race to become involved in politics so they can know the process and see what goes into being political. thank you. host: trey grayson. guest: thank you, olivia. when we get closer to the

election, i suspect young people will pay closer attention. a lot of things can happen. as they start paying more attention, they will get more engaged. he has a shot at getting more engaged. your believe that they may come around is quite possible. we saw him not to do well in iowa among young americans. he will have to do a better job than he did in the first caucus to minimize that gap between the millennials who are supporting him. the other part of her question about getting more young people engaged, we have seen a bit of a new -- a youth movement in washington. you saw a number of young senators being elected.

we see fairly young faces as a share of the republican national committee and the democratic national committee. as we go forward, we will see more and more young lineal -- millinials and more young people being elected. host: you are on the line. caller: i would like to say that about using the recess appointment power is totally unconstitutional. we have had everything given to us as opposed to other times when it was shot down people's throat. they were told that was what was happening. what is happening now is people

being informed and knowing what is going on in the government. host: trey grayson. guest: that is a good point with technology. where do they get their information. we were struck by the fact that they get a lot of information from traditional news entities. they get it online. they are not reading the new york times or the wall street journal newspaper or their local newspaper. they are reading it online. there is an opportunity to get a lot of information out there. there is an opportunity to get engaged in get connected to campaigns in a way they never could before. they can get information and act upon that information. some of the concerns you may have is that there is too much information out there and it becomes segmented. you choose where you get your news from.

sometimes, it reinforces your own beliefs. young people get their information differently from their parents or their grandparents. that has an impact on how campaigns reach out to them. host: were you able to get a read on how millenials feel about a movement like i occupy wall street? guest: we ask about occupy wall street. we found that not a lot of them are paying attention to occupy. about 20% said they supported the movement. about 1/3 said they did not support it. it is a little surprising considering a lot of the people are at the occupations or are impacted by the economic slowdown are young people. we were a little surprised by that. our thought is that maybe because this is a movement taking place in the larger

cities, when you get out into the rest of the country and the suburban and rural areas, it does not get as much coverage and they do not see it. also, the tactics of the group have not been successful. this is not a group of tea partiers either. only 10% of the people surveyed said they were supporters of the tea party. they believe the tea party had a greater impact on public policy than the occupied movement. the survey was taken in late november, early december. if the occupied movement has staying power, we will see that a lot of the millenials are paying attention to its impact. host: the next call comes from arkansas. caller: i am glad to be on. mr. grayson, i have something

important for you. i have important -- i have contacted attorney general eric holder. the young people have a serious uphill climb right now. there is a chief of the public integrity section. people ran for office here in arkansas. there was no election. i have been trying to get this election -- this information to him. host: we are going to move on. we appreciate you calling in. we are talking about the millenial generation and vaulting -- voting trends. caller: i have a question of four trey grayson. what do you think the participation of the millenial participation in the ron paul

campaign has to do with his policy to legalize marijuana and cocaine? guest: in the past, we have asked them to classify themselves on a wide variety of issues. they have a little bit more of a libertarian streak and my generation. you see that identified itself in a couple of ways. they tend to be more economically conservative and less interested in government regulation. in this survey, expressed a preference for social security private accounts. they believe in more economic freedom. on social issues, they are more supportive of gay marriage and gay relationships. we have not asked the drug question. my suspicion is that that has some level of appeal because it

has a libertarian position. this libertarian strand of young republicans is definitely out there and it will impact to the republican party going forward. even if ron paul does not become the nominee. it will impact the party for years to come. host: a tweet. old politicians are sticking them with debt and declining society. half of the u.s. senate is over 70 years old. death that is absolutely right about the debt and who is going to have to pay for its bank. he is right about the united states senate. when i ran, i was struck at how old some of the members were. our hope is that young voters continue to believe they can make an impact politically and they can elect their own candidates from their own

generation or candidates that will pay attention to issues like that and they can make a difference. they were a big part of president obama's coalition. they can make a difference. it is starting in the 2000 eighth election. in the 2000 presidential race, it -- the thousand a -- 2008 presidential election. it will be interesting to see what happens in 2012. this generation is going to become more and more a part of the voting electorate. their voices will be heard. policy makers will have to listen to these voters. otherwise, they will lose the elections. host: conray is a millenial in

new jersey. go ahead please. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: the other caller made a comment about how unconstitutional it was for the present to make a recess appointment. since obama has been president, he has only made 29 recess appointments. his predecessor, george w. bush, made 151 recess appointments. i did not hear anyone in the republican party screaming about that. the minute this president does so, there is a problem. ever since this man has become president, republicans have done nothing but block, criticize, blocks, criticize. it is a revival of the jim crow party of the past. thank you. host: what is your enthusiasm level in 2012 for the president? caller: i have to say, i will go

with the president. when i look at what i see on the other side, the big tree all i have been hearing from the other side is nauseating. absolutely nauseating. host: thanks for calling in. guest: it was interesting the way he answered your question. i was not surprised to hear him say, it is not like he was excited about me electing president obama. it is a fear of the other choice. sometimes you are motivated by not wanting the other candidates to win. sometimes it is, i really want my candidate to win. president obama benefited from this generation really wanting him to win and believing he could change washington. we would not have these confirmation fights and people could get up and down votes and beat voted for on their own merits.

we are heading down. people are upset. they are probably going to, in this generation and voted for president obama. they are not enthused. they are only voting for him because they do not like the other guy. it is the process of building a strong volunteer base. host: malcolm from arkansas on the independent line. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk to you about something a little different. they have a pool of young, talented and energetic young people. could you speak about some of the advances they have done in the area of technology. there has been collaboration with the private sector. guest: i want to say, your new

mayor in arizona was with us last month. we have a seminar we work on with the u.s. conference of mayors. she came with 20 other new mayors. it was nice to meet her and hopefully she gets off to a good start. harvard has a lot of technological innovations. one thing we just opened up was the animation lab, which was designed to be a collaboration -- innovation lab. it was designed to be a collaboration. mark zuckerberg created facebook along with several of his friends from the university. i have been struck by the interest of students in technology. it has impacted what we do and some of the programming we are offering ap. . peter thiele was invited to

speak about technology and how we can partner with businesses to get the economy moving again. shoot an email and i will pass it onto the right place at the university. host: can they read this online? guest: yes. all of the materials about the survey. if they want a top-level excerpt of the survey, it is available on our web page. if you also were to do a search on twitter, we created a hashtag. some of the coverage and facts of the survey can be found in some tweets. on the bottom part of our home

page at the bottom of the screen, you will see the link to the survey itself. host: a millenial in north carolina. caller: i think obama could have done a lot better if he had a congress that had its act together. congress has not been able to agree on anything for several years now, including the budget and everything else. i am losing faith. host: disappoint president obama four years ago? caller: no, i did not. he is my president so i have been tried to watch him closely to find out decisions he had been made -- he has made that affected us versus what bush did. guest: is great hearing all of these southern places. -- voices.

it is an interesting point he makes about the partisanship. it is something that president obama ran on, to change washington. it wasn't enough in the senate to overcome the filibuster. now we have divided government after the 2010 elections. it is more difficult to get things done. he felt compelled to do the recess appointments. those were pretty controversial. the need for them as well as the constitutionality of them. unfortunately, i look at this and i do not anticipate the next year being very productive in washington. it will not make us feel better about government until we get to the 2012 election. hopefully, after that election, we will be able to get moving again.

host: a tweet. do you think ron paul will run as a third-party candidate? guest: if congressman paul decided to run as a third-party candidate, he would get a decent percentage of the vote. i cannot think a third party candidate can win the election. he would probably pull 10% or 15% of the vote. my view is that he will not run as a third-party candidate. part of it is his relationship with his son, rand. naturally, he would want to support his aunt. but he is a republican. he wants to try to be an important player in washington, d.c. it would hurt him in the republican party and hurt him in kentucky.

at the end of the day, congressman paul will decide to push his issues and use his son's bully pulpit to continue the run. i cannot think he will run as an independent or third-party candidate because of his son. host: what about millenials and the third-party? guest: i did not know if you have had any of them on the show. we had a forum that received a lot of interest from our students. americans elect, for the folks who are not familiar, is a vehicle that is a non-party party. they are going to have an online convention. anybody can run and be nominated.

any american citizen can vote in the convention. we asked our students -- was asked millenials if they were interested in this idea. a large percentage said they would be open to an americans elect a candidate. several of the callers have mentioned that washington is not working. they are open to the idea of nominating a candidate and nominate a president. it will be fascinating to see how this plays out this summer. it could have a real impact on this race. buddy roemer had expressed an interest in being their nominee. an adviser to president bush and senator mccain is one of the supporters of this. they have a lot of money on this. they are going to get on all 50 ballots.

we could keep talking about them all the way up to the next election. host: we are talking to trey grayson. he is the director of the harvard institute of politics. americans elect were on this program. on our republican line, good morning. caller: i am it is in politics at delay -- loyola university. we need the youth to step up. the theater of america is in their hands. host: trey grayson. guest: amen.

our whole mission is to encourage students to get more involved in public policy. i am glad that he is involved with loyola. we all its to try to get young people more in about -- it to ourselves to try to get young people more involved. one thing we want to do with our services to get a dialogue going between millenials and non- millenials. we sent copies of this survey that was drafted by our students summarizing the presidential campaign. we told all our students these are ways you can approach millenial voters.

we did it with samson college in iowa. -- simpson college in iowa. we will talk to any campaign about how they can reach out to millenials. as parents or grandparents, teaching your children about the process. in our schools, trying to get more civics education in the classroom. highlighting the great work that you do as c-span. we have to show them how it works. the system can make a difference. most importantly, they are needed and they can shape the future and not to sit back and accept something they are not happy about. host: what was it about barack obama that ignited enthusiasm among young voters? guest: there were a lot of

things. one, is a it was helpful. he was the youngest candidate in the field. he could probably better relate to young people. the history making notion of his candidacy, the first african- american candidate. the ability of him and his campaign to embrace technology. the barack obama site, which enabled people to create their own social network. they capture technology. they went to where millenials were and gave them the tools to communicate with their peers. his message to change washington and bring the country back together. millenial voters started out a little bit idealistic in that election. he appealed to their sense of, we have to do better. we can bridge these divides. ideologically, the millenials

tend to be more democratic and more progressive, even with that libertarian streak. there was not a candidate on the republican side -- that can they would not have been as successful as president obama. there were probably a lot more reasons that could explain his popularity. host: from california, go ahead. caller: i have a large family. five children and 11 grandchildren. they are definitely affected by the economy. they are not all democrats like i am. i know they do not want to elect newt gingrich. they say he does not get along with his constituents. i did not know that. they all agree on one thing. they want to know why the republicans will not tax the

multimillionaires. it does not affect small businesses. they feel the republicans are wrong in not letting them past that tax on to them. they pointed out that some of the i did not know american living was abroad. they do not see color. they do not have the prejudices we had in my generation. you can put that aside. >> we believe that there. -- will leave that there. >> this is the most diverse generation in america. they are used to having classmates of different colors.

where are they as far as being democrats, republicans, independents? >> faris a sizable number of independence. we asked two different questions. the other was ideology and the other was affiliation. there were more democrats than republicans. they're more liberal and democratic than they are conservative and republican. we see it in party affiliation. i remember this in kentucky when i was the chief elections officer.

and we see that around the country. even if they have an affinity the might say i am a democrat. that affinity is less strong than their grandparents. we called them yellow dog democrats. i do not think this generation has yellow dog democrats. they tend to be more democratic. definitely not 50%. >> athank you. >> newt gingrich is speaking at a tea party meeting. this is the last of four events for the former house speaker. he held town halls in plymouth and middleton, toward businesses, and spoke again in

lancaster, new hampshire before here in mara liasson death. -- in meredith.

[inaudible conversations]

>> good evening, everybody. great crowd, great turnout. i am one of the coal leaders of the lakes region tea party. it is excited to -- it is

exciting to be here and to host this event and i want to thank you for coming. i want to thank the team for making this all possible. it is amazing. earlier in the evening, i had the opportunity to be interviewed by two different international press people. their questions were kind of fascinating. it tied into why newt is here tonight and why the turnout is so big. one of the questions is, what is the attraction? what makes him a viable candidate? i thought, if you pay attention, these are international correspondents and i do not expect them to be tuned in all the time to the u.s. think about newt. i said, "this is a unique time in our country's history.

i am going to pull a line from michele bachmann. this election, this is the one we have to get it right. we cannot make a mistake. or partly, this election -- more importantly, it is not about newt gingrich. it is not about mitt romney, ron paul, or rick santorum. this is about beating obama. -- beating obama. let's look at the candidates, let's look at newt." we have a financial crisis that if we do not solve it now, and this next term, it could spell the bankruptcy of our country. we need a candidate that

understands international politics. we need a candidate that understands fiscal policy. we need a candidate in these horribly partisan * that can work with both sides as best as possible. we need a candidate who is conservative. i would like to introduce to you the next president of the united states, newt gingrich. [applause]

♪ >> i forgot to say one other thing before i hand over the mike. anybody for the meet and greet if you would line up on the left-hand side of the room because we're making the flow go in this direction. we want everyone to line up there. mr. speaker, it is all yours. >> this is quite a turnaround. i am very impressed.

i want to thank all of you. as a former teacher, it is unnerving to have people directly behind you. i will count on you to keep them under control. no spitballs, you got it down, right. i am thrilled that all of you have come out this evening. i am grateful. i want to share a couple of things. running for president is very odd. you have all this attention from our friends in the media and all that stuff. the way the system really works, you're supposed to say things that are automatically understood by everybody who -- it is scripted and you repeat maniacally 4622 times. anything else gets complicated. i will tell you a story about new hampshire. i got involved in doing

education for them. i am thrilled that we have a number of young people here. that is what this should be about. this is about their future, their country. what we're going to do with the decisions will make. this may be the most important election in our lifetime. eight years of barack obama will wreck the country and we need to stop the decay as fast as we can. you are allowed to clap. [applause] one of the approaches i have taken, i talked about re- introducing the work ethic and in 1607 in jamestown, work was part of being american. captain john smith was approached by several aristocrats who said we have paid our way over here and you cannot make this work.

he said, you're right. under the contract i cannot make you work. this is a new world. in this new world, there are limited resources. therefore, while i cannot make it work, if you do not work, you will not weat. sort of the opposite of communism. they came back and said, this work thing. we have a new interest in it. and from that point on, workers at the heart of the american ideal. -- work was at the heart of the american ideal. we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. an active term. i said a few weeks ago, i thought it would be good, particularly in the poorest

neighborhoods to try to find a way to help poor children have a chance to learn the work habits and learned a bright patterns. i was affected by an article i read 20 or 25 years ago by joe klein which described janitors. they start at a higher salary than the teachers. the peak pay for school janitors is higher than the peak pay for teachers. it is an example of union power. the first thing that came back was the left, which responded to me about the way they had to senator moynihan when he first discussed these ideas and they were shocked. he was a liberal democrat so he was in double crumble -- trouble because he was a traitor to the idea. it was too hard to ask them to be independent. just relax and we the government will define their lives.

it came back that newt gingrich wants to attract children into being janitors. janitors do really dangerous work, why did you want to risk these kids being killed? i am not making this up. klein knew where this had come from. we went back and got the article. we figured out if you kept the head jenna chair to be in charge of everything that was hard, if you would take one janitor preschool and for one janitor per school, you could hire 20 or 30 kids at $3,000 each. it would reduce dropouts. some could work in the front office or cafeteria and some could push a broom or mop a floor. my younger daughter wrote me

this note. had i forgotten her first job was at first baptist in georgia and she had cleaned out the toilets and it taught her the value of earning money. she took pride in what she was doing. it was part of learning how to work. we have two grandchildren. they're learning how to work. it is an interesting model. maggie wrote me on her new ipad. where did you get a new ipad? she said i have been saving everything i earned until i could afford it. this was -- not her parents get. this was her ipad. it is true that she negotiated how much doing the dishes was worth and she negotiated -- nonetheless.

she is learning. a young man of 16 years old name began in manchester who has ian's wicked good donuts. i just did a column this week. i do a weekly newsletter that goes out for free. this week's column was on ian. he is 16. he started ian's wicked good ? at 11. his father found this an expensive down a machine. they decided this would be a good thing to learn how to do. his father was excited. ian got two local restaurants that became customers every morning for fresh doughnuts. he found local fruit stands in the summer and became customers for doughnuts. it can imagine how this bill.

his father has all level of excitement. -- a level of excitement. for the first time he can drive and deliver his own doubts. doughnuts.'s -- i put at the bottom, if you have a story about someone who started early, send it to me. i said, this is exactly what i am trying to explain to people. would you write your story? most of the newsletter was written by ian and it is historic. he thinks he will earn enough to put himself through college without borrowing money. i am a candidate because i believe what is wrong with america is deeper than politics and vastly more than barack obama. we need to have a conversation that drives at how fundamental

the change needs to be. we need to have the courage to go out and talk to everybody in every neighborhood about an america that works. and what that america is like. i will take a symbol and i will have food stamps versus paychecks. president obama is the most effective food stamp president in american history. no president has put more people on food stamps that obama. this is not an attack. it is a statement. it is not negative, it is a fact. i would like to be the best paycheck president in american history. [applause] i look at these young people and i think, it would be better for them to grow in a world where

they actually had a job and earn a paycheck and more independent than to grow in a world where there were unemployed and had to take food stamps and were dependent. this is a fundamental cultural question. because once you decide that work is at the center of the american experience, many of the things -- other things come out of it. you decide and i do not want to lose them, you decide that young people have to do homework. the second half is important. it is work. they have to do homework because if you will compete with china and india and korea, you have to know something. which means you have to go back to the schools and reinstates the idea that the schools are about learning. they're not about self-esteem as a gift. there are about self-esteem as something you learn. there are not about socialization, there are about to education. -- they are not about self-

esteem as something you learn. they are about education. you have to drop this thing where if you tell friday he is if good enough -- -freddie he is not good enough -- [applause] if you got in trouble with the teacher you got in trouble with your parents for getting in trouble with the teacher. if you said to freddie he was not doing right he would -- and they would threaten to see you because you have harmed his psyche. if he gets a diploma he cannot read, you have ruined his life. why do you not boroughs his psyche a little bit and get him to learn how to read? -- bruise his psyche a little bit and get him to learn how to read? we have a cultural conversation with any political campaign about a government which ought to be designed to reinforce the

right culture. not the wrong culture. this is why this is the most important election in our lifetime. we are currently on a road toward a european style secular bureaucratic socialist model that is profoundly wrong. if the founding fathers were shipped and influence by adam smith's great works, theory of moral virtue and the wealth of nations, the president issued by s shaped by twohape works. the notion that people who work for their interest collect -- create a collective interest. there is an invisible hand that is smarter than any government. these are fundamentally antithetical visions of the world.

i was fortunate to have banned the job creator twice. in 1978, 1979 i worked with jack kemp and others in developing the supply side economics. it is a simple model. you want sound money, lower taxes, less regulation, more american energy, and you want to praise the people with the courage to create jobs. [applause] notice that this cookbook is the opposite of obamaism. sound money, inflation. bernanke is doing and pouring money out of the federal reserve. it is dangerous. lower taxes, higher taxes. less regulation, more regulation. more american energy, anti- american energy. praise for the people who create

jobs, class warfare. is it any wonder this administration is such a mess? their core formulas are performing wrong. i probably should not say this but i cannot help myself. i saw the president today. did anyone see the picture? the president getting in a volt? he -- i will get to that. do not get ahead of my story. i -- there is this scene. if you watch cable news, the repeat every half-hour so you can pick up 10% and by the end of the day you have got all that. at some point, obama goes as part of his greenness to jump in

a volt. had this picture of him getting in the car and underneath it talks about how all the volts are being recalled. it is a pity we cannot recall him along with the volts. [applause] if a defective car is bad, what about a defective president? anyway, this is the two models. i am an historian. i am an historian in large part because imitation is cheaper than invention. this is sort of like how people develop cookbooks. on the left, you have this model. it is technically true.

if you leave and a guy in the freezer long enough, it will become hard. -- an egg in the freezer long enough, it will become hard. if you boil it for a while, both produce hard eggs. thsis one is dumb. if you elect a left-wing academic becomes impossible. let me give you an example based on historic fact. there are too terrific examples. first is jobs. what is the result of sound money, lower taxes, less regulation, praise for job creators? ronald reagan cuts the unemployment rate in half. in august 1983, we create 1,300,000 new jobs. if you take the reagan recovery over our current population, you would be 25 million jobs in seven years. after reagan we have two tax

increases. the economy stagnates. i get elected speaker. we go back to the first tax credits in 16 years and the capital gains cut and unemployment drops. we create 11 million new jobs. these are pretty straightforward experiments. they work. we had to experiment in left- wing economics. jimmy carter, who created 13% inflation, 22% interest rates, rising unemployment at 10.8% and the gasoline rationing program in which a good bass -- by gasoline every other day -- buy gasoline every other day. a good friend of mine was 13 the year. every morning, his father would send him out back with a screwdriver to make sure the

right license plate was on a hard -- the car that needed gassing. now, i drive from that the following test you can give your neighbors whether they're liberal or conservative. if you learn the government has done something dumb enough that we're teaching 13-year-old how to break rules, and if you are conservative you say we have to change the regulation because it is stupid. if you're a liberal, you say, this is why we need a license plate police at every gas station. it is about coercion. imposing your will on a free people. that is the context in which this election is going to be held. the first is, we know historically for fact if you follow these goals, sound money, lower taxes, less regulation, more american energy, and praising the people

who create jobs, you will have a boom of employment in the united states. therefore, i am running on a ticket to go to -- if you go to newt.org, there is this program. you take the cookbook that works, not the one that fails. let me give you a second historic example. if you want to save social security, you want to allow young americans to have the right to choose a personals social security savings account. everybody who wants to can stay in the current system. you are not making them leave. you are saying, how would you like to take your half of the personal tax part of the social security tax and put it directly into a savings account you will control. no politician will control it. barack obama will not be able to

say as he did i may not be able to send you a check. this is no longer a theory. we have historic evidence from two places. --veston, texas, and july chile. i met with the head of the chilean operation. he was the original creator of this model. here are the facts. if you allow people at 16, 17, 18 or 11 to start putting away the tax part of what they're doing, it builds compound interest for their entire working lifetime. you are saving for a minimum of 50 years. compound interest over 50 years means you end up with two or three times much money as in the current transfer group. in a bad year, you still have more money than the base line

social security system. both models guaranteed you would never drop below the minimum social security pattern. chile, they haveul never written one check. there is a couple of secondary effects. it means when you are saving, you are building up your own personal stake. because of the way social security works, if you die before you retire, all the money you paid goes to the government. none of it is in the state. the group that hurts most is african-american males because they have the shortest life span and the least money -- likely to get their money back. this would do more to help african-american males than any other group. second, the -- martin feldstein at harvard estimates if you

allow people to voluntarily to opt in and the social security actuary, the person who does this analysis estimated you would have 95% to 97% of people opt in because the returns are massively better. in one generation you eliminate 50% of the wealth inequality in the u.s. every single worker becomes an investor and a saver. you have little -- this does not count any second order effects because they learn the value of compound interest and it is fun to have savings bill that. you have a bigger effect that i am describing. when you have that level of saving every single year, the amount is enormous. in chile, the social security savings are 70% of the annual

economy. so big that they allow people to invest part of it overseas because the economy cannot absorb it all. as compared to our current indebtedness, let's think about the difference. finally, he estimates by the end of this cycle, the first generation, the economy is $7 trillion or $8 trillion bigger annually. that is reinvested into the economy and creates more jobs at that much higher salaries are works in a circle. you are saving so you're getting a bigger buildup and that is being invested. you can have more savings. this becomes an awkward spiral of relative wealth. the thing that is great about this -- i am not describing a theory. when people start -- talked about it was a theory. i am describing to places where it works. galveston and chile. everybody wants to stay in the

current system, you are safe. i would take social security off budget. it will never again be hostage to politicians playing games. i would put it back as a trust fund and i would say, no consideration of the debt ceiling would block it. it has the money, it should pay the money and the politicians ought to keep their hands off it. [applause] let me ask you one thing about new hampshire. we are looking at developing a program for veterans where we would build a veterans clack in the north country that would be connected with telehealth so you could get sophisticated diagnostics. we're expanding benefits to get care without having to go to boston. we're looking to use a local doctor or hospital. we should not require veterans

in mid-winter to drive all the way from the north country to boston in order to be taken care of. [applause] let me ask you three quick questions. how many acute -- of you agree that the u.s. is very much on the wrong track right now? how many of you agree that fixing it is more than just barack obama, it includes the bureaucracy, the laws, the courts, the whole system has to be put back on the right track? how many of you agree that if we win the election, the old order will fight us every day to stop us from getting it back? the reason i ask is that is the reason i am running. , 60e're at 4% unemployment in the middle east, i would not be running. i have already done this.

as speaker, i have a wonderful time. and i had a pretty good private life and i was not getting beaten up and i was not having people try to embarrass me and i was not crisscrossing the country seven days a week. we have two grandchildren. 10 and 12. think about what kind of country are they going to inherit? it is a mess. it is embarrassing. this last couple of weeks were worse than usual. i felt i had to run. i think i had to run. because i am the only place -- person in the race to has done this. i worked to shape an election and create a team effort. who brought the candidates together. we picked up the u.s. senate and we won six senate seats by a combined margin of 75,000 votes. and worked in a democratic house with tip o'neill as speaker and

we got one-third of the democrats to vote to for the reagan tax program. we had not made it bipartisan. then it would not have passed. you could not pass it as a republican broker. i worked eight years with reagan on the defeat of the soviet empire. and when i got elected speaker in 1994, it was a team effort. we had members of the house show up -- sign up. it was a positive campaign and design strategically to unify the american people. the largest one party increase in an off-year in 1994. 9 million additional public votes. 1 million fewer democratic votes. we took control. in 1993 -- we loaded on every single item in the contract. it is keeping our word matter. -- does keeping our word matter? i am the only candidate running who understands how to design

national campaigns and understands how to implement real change want to get elected. we watched three years of an amateur. i think a conservative amateur or moderate amateur is not going to be dramatically better than a liberal amateur. it will be better than obama. the scale of change you describe will take a level of leadership that is amazing. it cannot be my leadership. i tell every audience, i will not ask you to be for me. if you are for me, you'll vote and go home and say, i hope he gets it done. that is not possible. this is such a big mess that not even the president can get us out of the ditch by himself. i will ask you to be with me for the next eight years. i will ask you to be shoulder to shoulder with me, reminding congress every day, this is what we want to get done. reminding the governor and the

state legislature, the township, the city council, the school board. i want you to be with me because we're going to make mistakes treated you cannot have changed on the scale and not make mistakes. excuse me. i want to build a social network so if you see as making a mistake, you let us know. if you see the world is changing and we do not get it, you let us know. if you have a better idea, let us know. 537 elected people are not that smart. they prove it every day. [laughter] five or 10 or 15 million americans could create a collective effort that would be amazing. finally, i want you to be with me for a fundamental reason. if we're going to implement the 10th amendment and reduce the bureaucracy in washington, are returning power back home, we have to grow citizenship to replace it. is that simple.

-- it is that simple. two reasons i can be barack obama. the first, he is right to have $1 billion. he will use almost all that negatively. there are two ways to defeat someone who has that much resources. the first is, you have to design a campaign as we did in 1980 and 1984 and in '94. you have to design a campaign where the two sides are this far apart. you want his billion dollars to fall in the middle. if you run a campaign that this is this close -- that it is this close, there will always be you. they can simply lie. when you campaign this far apart as to the carter discovered, even when they like it does not work.

carter would say something false and the joke would be, there you go again and the country got it. food stamps, paychecks, anti- american energy, pro-american energy. you want things to be this far apart? i can design and implement a campaign like that. i am this person. i am a reagan conservative. i spent my entire career in the movement. i went to a cold water organizing meeting in 1964 and direct -- met with reagan in 1974. someone who comes out of a moderate massachusetts background is by definition here. houri going to explain that romney -- how are you going to explain that romneycare isn't the same as obamacare? how are you going to explain the tax increases or not tax

increases, there were called phase? an increase in new hampshire commuter tax, those are called tax increases. i voted against the reagan 1982 tax increases and the bush 1990 tax increase and the clinton tax increase. i have a pretty cheerful opposition, no. i could have served in the new hampshire legislature. i would have been miserable in massachusetts but i would have been fine in new hampshire. i think -- you have to think about what are we trying to elect? you have to be able to win the debate. if you cannot win, you cannot beat obama. that is why because the issues are so big, as your nominee, i will challenge him to 73 our debates -- seven three-hour debates with a timekeeper but no

moderator. i will concede in advance he can use a teleprompter. [laughter] after all, if you had to defend want tore, wouldn't you use the teleprompter? i believe in the end he will agree to the debates. for three reasons. he announced in february 2007 in springfield, quoting lincoln, second, things like obama. how does he look in the mirror? gradual -- graduate of columbia. graduate of harvard law. editor of "the harvard law review." how does he look in the mirror and say to himself, i am afraid to debate some guy who taught at

west georgia college? he is not going to do it? -- he is not going to do it. there is a third reason. unlike, the president -- unlike the president, i studied a lot of american history. lincoln had been out of auspice -- office for 10 years. he had been a state legislator. he went back home and was in private practice for 10 years. he is announcing against the most famous democratic senator and a probable next president. he said there are 105 days left in the campaign, let's debate every day. douglas was very famous and said i do not think so. they knew each other very well. they served in the legislature today. lincoln picked up the pattern. wherever douglas went, lincoln would go 24 hours later and he would rebut the speech.

after three weeks, douglas figured out the news coverage was linkedin's were bottle -- lincoln's rebuttal. he wrote lincoln, and said, all right. back to the two you chased me out of but the seven. these debates were covered very intensely. there were covered in every major newspaper in the north and many in the south. lincoln had them printed up as a book and they were sold all over the country. there were a major rise -- part of his rise to present. if you will help me next tuesday and will vote for me and talk to your friends and neighbors between now and then, if i become your nominee, in the acceptance speech in tampa, if the president has not yet accepted the seven debates, i

will announce that from that night on, the white house is my scheduler and wherever the president goes, i will show up for hours later -- four hours later and i will enter his speech anywhere in the country. -- answer his speech anywhere in the country. [applause] i have a hunch in the age of instant television that will take two weeks for them to decide to rethink it. one last example and i will take questions. just to show you i believe in imitation more than invention. in 1979, 1980, reagan had a favorite saying. if your brother-in-law is unemployed, it is a recession. if you are unemployed, it is a depression. if to make carter is unemployed, it is called the recovery. you may hear that used later on this year in the general

election with a different name than carter. you'll know from tonight where it started. it does sound to me like it fits barack obama's presidency pretty well. i look forward to your questions. [applause] let's see. yes, ma'am. she is bringing a microphone. >> i know you are. i am a u.s. navy --[inaudible] right now as you speak to us, we have two sons of this nation serving in the middle east. as what bill clinton designated whereabouts unknown.

it is more media friendly was his theory. they are pow/mia. if you are elected to the office of commander-in-chief, what steps will you take to account for those two children of this nation, and two, restore the pow-mia terminology and restoring the urgency to this situation? and if it is feasible, if it is a feasible venture to negotiate with other countries for the safe return of american journalists and american hikers to the point they are escorted home by former presidents, is it not feasible to do the same for american military personnel, and

because my personality is that of yours -- >> does that mean good? >> if you would actually give me an answer instead of the usual, i will look into it that i always get, since you are already a former speaker of the house, thank you very much, and i already know that you have been on board with former senator bob smith for years, you should already addressed this issue. >> the answer is yes. i would move immediately, if we could do it by executive order, i would do it on the day i am sworn in and changed to a pow- mia category as of that day. it would happen the first day. i would establish a task force and ask bob who has been involved to help me put together a task force to seek out these two people and try to track down their whereabouts and their circumstances.

i would make that a high priority. we should have an aggressive attitude about returning our young people when they are in situations like this. in some cases it may involve negotiating. in other cases it might involve a covert operation. i do not think we should leave a single american behind. we should not forget the people who served this country and i say that as the son of a 27- fought.antryman who [applause] thank you. >> attacks on character are part of the political and media norm and they are affected. you have not followed this pattern since the campaign began. this is evidence that you are different. tell you to bea negative or you will not win.

is this the media beating you for is she right? b - 4 be gone? >> we will see. i -- what happened was straightforward. people watched the debates and to talk to each other and there was a sudden burst. i ended up being the front- runner. i was pulling away to a degree if we had a month of it, we would have become the favorite. as you can imagine, several of my competitors found that a frightening prospect. their response was to be dishonest. one of the ads running four pinocchios. how hard would you have to design and add to have four different pinocchios? the standard would be to take a

picture of romney and have the nose grow. that would be a clever ad. gingrich is hitting back. that would be stupid. i am running because this is about these young people and about my two grandchildren. i'm going to run a campaign were the of my grandchildren. -- worthy of my grandchildren. if they have secret pacs, that is up to the american people. i am not going to use those techniques because i could not govern if i use those techniques anymore then governor romney will be able to. you try to win the presidency with that kind of stuff, you have no reservoir of goodwill. you have no capacity to grow and in the end you cannot govern.

george w. bush helped prove it in 2004. he john kerry in a bush's campaign where the boat was slightly better than the anti- bush vote and he tried to pass social security reform and he could not get off the ground because he had a 48% opposed from day one. i do not have any desire to run to be president. i have a desire to help the united states of america. i think i can help by being an honest citizen and telling the truth. i believe in the end we will win doing that. i think we will do better in new hampshire that people expect because if you describe a massachusetts moderate and remind people of his record, they will go he is not a conservative. it is a joke for him to call himself a conservative. it is a skit. by the time we get to south carolina it will be clear that there is a real choice. you