[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tomorrow on "newsmakers" a preview of the south carolina primary on january 21 with the chairman of the south carolina republican party, chad connelly, and on presidential politics.

>> if you really want to see the candidates, c-span's "road to the white house" political coverage takes you on the campaign trail. >> don't know who's going to come out and who's not. >> you are. >> i'm encouraged by the crowds we're seeing. >> go to town halls, campaign rallies and meet and greets. >> thank you for coming. it was enjoyable. >> it's a pleasure to have a listening ear. thank you for giving one. >> i do have is a question for

you. >> sure. >> what are some of the plans to do that? are you planning on taxing some of these big companies for shipping work overseas? >> i want a tax code that clears out all of the loopholes -- >> watch the new hampshire coverage on c-span television and on our website, c-span.org. next week, a look at online piracy legislation, the debate over spectrum and other key telecommunications issues expected this year. >> well, as 2012 begins, we thought we would take this opportunity on the "communicators" to look at some of the legislative and regulatory issues that the telecommunications industry may face this year. and to do so, we've invited three of our regular guest reporters on to talk about some of these issues. paul is senior editor with telecommunications reports,

julianna is with the "national journal," tech and telecom staff writer, and thank you all for being here on "communicators" once again. second session of the 112th congress begins in just a couple of weeks. what's the biggest issue that congress will be facing with regard to telecommunication issues? >> well, i think right now the hottest issue is obviously online piracy. that's a new development, but as we've discussed in the past, there's two bills in front of the house right now, a bill in front of the senate that would take some rather significant to crease the government's authority and enforce online copyrights. they've also drawn a strong backlash from the technology community. i think that's the hottest topic right now because the state of those bills is still very much in doubt. >> who is on each side of these piracy bills? >> on the one side, the the contentedlude industry, the movie makers, the

record industry, publishers, people who make content. you know, movies, music. and on the other side, as mentioned, are the tech industry, a lot of the big tech companies oppose both the house and the senate bills, twitter, facebook, google. they've lined up against it, along with internet engineers, civil libertarians, other folks. >> do you see piracy passing, piracy legislation passing, in 2012? >> i think it will. you have the house that will probably get something through. the problem always will be in the senate which is controlled by the democrats so it's going to be kind of messy as we get down to the crunch time. if the house passes something, what will the senate do? and the rules are different in the senate, can you have the minority block legislation what would the conference look like? so i think it's going to be some time. as we get closer, through the year, even though this is an election issue, if you will, we get closer to election, people

want to get out of town. so it's going to be a little messy. a lot of money being thrown at these piracy bills? >> absolutely. i think the piracy bills protect i.p., and then in the house, the act is a result of many years of lobbying on behalf of as julianna said, hollywood, the retail industry, the commerce has an office dedicated to this legislation. we're talking about probably one of the largest lobbying efforts in recent years in wash warm and the tech industry, even though it's very large, constitutes a larger share of our economy is having to catch up very quickly and they're far behind in right now -- far behind right now. >> when you see the ads for and against these bills, they're almost apocalyptic before what could -- about what could actually happen. what's the purpose of that? and could our world change that much if this legislation gets passed? >> it depends on who you ask. there are some internet engineers who have some strong

concerns with this, with the legislation, particularly it would mandate that internet service providers take certain actions to keep americans and -- the jurisdiction that both could americans from accessing for websites that offer online -- that offer pirated content or counterfeit goods. and so they have concerns of the some of the things that have been put in place to protect the security of the internet could be hampered by this. that's what the critics say the the supporters on the other hand say this is all overblown that some of the measures that they're asking be taken are being used to block spam, and to do some other things so it's a he said, she said. >> paul, have we heard any word from the administration on their view on this piracy legislation? >> actually, i don't cover it kind of day-to-day. and this point -- the administration often will weigh in when it gets to the floor of the house and the senate to

o.m.b. and say this is what we do, we recommend the president veto or not veto. >> i think that right now there's been some hope among the online community in particular that they've asked president obama to veto the bill. they've submitted one of those online petitions which the white house will respond if it's reached the required number of so the white house is expected to give an official position. however, the white house has been very aggressive in terms of online copyright enforcement so i think it would seem more likely at this point that the house would not veto the legislation. of course, that's speculative and they have not yet given us their official position. >> julianna? >> and we need a bill to the floor. there's been a close tour of votes -- cloture of bills. that's what supporters say -- senator leahy, chairman of the senate judiciary committee and the author of the senate bill has said that he believes he has won enough votes to get that

bril through over there -- bill through over there. >> what else will the telecommunications industry face this year? >> the other big issue is and the legislation whole push to free up more spectrum to meet the nation's demand for wireless technologies. before congress left, there was thought that maybe spectrum legislation was going to get attached to the payroll tax extension. when they only passed the two-month extension, they did not include -- when they come back and work on a one-year schedule, the thought is that spectrum legislation could be included in that because spectrum options raise money for the treasury. and that provides an offset to the cost of that bill. >> this has been one of the prize issues, talking about spectrum shortage and look ahead. >> it has. he talks of the invisible

infrastructure. it would basically allow to auction spectrum and some of the folks giving spectrum up, tv broadcasters, namely, perhaps satellite operators, the legislation has that set of options authority in it people do support that part of it. it pays for a lot of these other things in the payroll tax extension, unemployment benefits, something which involved medicare so it can help pay the house republicans field for $16 billion basically is an offset to help pay for these other things so caught up in this bigger package is -- again, it has.bipartisan support. there are other things for public safety, the public safety network and funding some of those things, are somewhat controversial. the democrats in the house in particular and public safety groups are opposed to some provisions in there. so for instance to give back in exchange for other spectrum.

governance of a public safety network, the house republicans passed a bill that would involve the lower funding level than was passed in the senate and the bill that was pushed by senators rockefeller and hutchinson. so i think that will end up in any final package. again, it was not in the two-month extension. it was in the one-year passed by the house. i think that will stay in there. the conference committee, two people on the conference committee that will talk about this are waldon and upton, the chairman of health energy and commerce committee and said indication subcommittee so they're expected to push the spectrum. >> do you see action on spectrum? >> i do. >> happening this year? a big push on all sides to see this go through. the question is what does the legislation look like? congressman waldon has thrown off the idea of possibly dropping the public safety provision it's they can't settle some of the issues. a big priority for senator rockefeller in the senate. i would be surprised if he allowed that to happen.

he said the provisions are his high priority as far as spectrum goes. >> yes, i think guilana is right. it's been one of the main sticking points going forward. >> think there's fairly widespread consensus on need for spectrum auctions, obviously our wireless networks have been a huge issue for the f.c.c. with at&t mergers so it's been front and center for the last year. the momentum is there. they're hammering out the details. >> whether you say widespread, do you mean bipartisan? is there bipartisan part for this? >> i think so. in fact, yes. the broadcasters have always been one of the main flies in the ointment when it comes to spectrum auctions. they've expressed support for some of the proposals. a lot of it is characterized as passive aggressive support, meaning they still raise, seeming, objections, but overall hey've indicated this understand that this is coming.

and i think that they've accepted that. >> paul kirby, third issue? >> it's another issue that will continue to be an issue at the s.e.c. and on the hill. it involves light square. light square is still out there. there's more testing going on. there was testing that was completed in the government reported in december that the government felt, anyway, that testing of general location, g.p.s. devices work cause interference. that conclusion is too pessimistic. there's more testing that will probably occur in january. the f.c.c. then would have to make a decision, the commerce department would make a recommendation. so that will continue to be an issue. now, it's not as broad, if you will, as spectrum or outlying piracy. but it's a regulatory issue that people in congress care about as well. >> and there's a lot of money involved. >> on both sides, g.p.s. and light square. >> guilana, where are we on privacy issues?

>> i think we'll continue to see some hearings on that. i would be surprised if we see any markup of legislation in the house. congresswoman mack has indicated she may hold more hearingsen that. there is a bill out there related to privacy of dealing with data breaches, intrusions into companies networks, private information being taken that could move forward, but that's also been kind of -- there's been issues with that in the house. democrats don't like the bill that came out of subcommittee. mary bono mack's subcommittee. they've been trying to work through some of those issues. there's one area we could see movement on prief yaysy. >> right now i think it's fair to say we're going see hearings and discussion. but privacy is more of a regulatory than a legislative issue at the moment. the federal trade commission is

enforcing -- they're serving as de facto privacy standards for the government. we've seen settlements between both google and facebook regarding alleged misrepresentations of their privacy policies. the federal trade commission has put both under comprehensive privacy programs. they're going to be audited every two years. and they've really served notice that this is what's going to happen. we're going to be watching what you do. we don't need a bill to step in. we'll use the f.t.c. so make sure you're not abusing consumers' information or putting it out there in ways people expect because the f.c.c. will regulate it. >> are telecommunications issues on the hill broken down by party, by industry? >> they're starting to take on a partisan tone in some areas, particularly when talking about things like regulation. obviously republicans in the house, especially have a very antiregulatory tone. so that's why they oppose

something like net neutrality. with that being sped, tech issues are not a priority for most lawmakers. that remains the case. that's changing. about it's a slow change so what that means is these issues are whoever is interested in them. and i think you see the differences based on how educated people are about technology policy and how much involvement they've had in it. >> you were shaking you your head yes. >> i agree. i think for the most part tech and com issues are not -- on the online piracy debate, for example, there's bipartisan opposition in the house. the house judiciary committee before the break, they were marking up their legislation. and opposition to that was on both sides of the aisle. you had issa and laugh lynn, and a very liberal democrat, teaming up to try to offer amendments to fix the

flaws they saw in the bill so that one example where there is bipartisan support. >> a lot of times it's the details so in spectrum, for instance, the republican and democrats both degree, gee, we need to get more spectrum out there. but how do you do it? for instance, the house bill that was passed that involves spectrum it would basically say to the f.c.c., you can't lem -- you can't say the verizon, at&t, you can't participate because you're so big. that's a provision the republicans got to. there's also net neutrality in there that the democrats oppose. so the big issues people may support and be bipartisan, then there's the little details, if you will, not so little but those finite provisions that can draw people to take one side or the other. >> this is c-span's "communicators." we're looking ahead to 2012 and some of the legislative and regulatory issues that lawmakers may be facing. we are joined by three of our regular guest reporters, paul

kirby, senior editor with telecommunications reports, guilana greenwald, national journal, where she covers tech and telecom, and galfin works for "the hill "i, a technology reporter. ok. who wants to start with this one? reform of the f.c.c. something that f.c.c. commissioners are now talking about along with people in congress. who wants to start? go ahead. >> so f.c.c. reform is in front of the house. >> is there a bill? >> there is a bill. telecom panel greg waldon, very vocal on all telecom issues. he's a former broadcaster himself. this is, i think, fair to say a lot of this comes from two things, the merger of nbc, universal, comcast and then the passage of the net neutrality resumes both were prolonged within the commission. the ultimate results, both the passage of net knew at rules --

neutrality rules and the attachment of the nbc, universal, comcast merger raised objections from republicans. they felt that some of the conditions on the merge he were went outside of what the f.c.c. should be concerned with. and they were -- they think it's an overreach so what this is trying to do essentially is on one hand bring transparency to what the f.c.c. does, gives them more reporting requirements. but really what it's also going to do is make it harder to pass new regulations because they're going to require a cost benefit analysis of any potential regulation, and that would really, you know, cloud the water quite a bit in terms of action going forward. >> i'm going to let my colleagues deal with this. >> mr. kirby? >> i was going to say, some folks say why are you treating the f.c.c. different than other administrative agency? in fact, congress and the house looked at legislation basically that would apply to all administrative agencies. the f.c.c., of course is one of

many independent agencies so some folks feel they're being treated differently. as you said, the f.c.c. commissioners have said there's a need for reform. but, again, it's the details of how do you it. the democrats in the house energy and economies committee say we're not against reform, but we think the way you're doing this is -- during shearing in some ways not a great way to go forward. there have been planned or expected in december a full committee markup that has been postponed so we're waiting action on that going forward. again, once something gets to the senate, there's a companion senate bill, all belts are off. would you assume them to be more friendly to the f.c.c. and their would come outat of this divided congress, we don't know at this point. >> you've all mentioned net neutrality a couple of times so far today what is the status? it's something we've talked about for years on "the communicators." >> go ahead. have become official as of november 20.

we're aweight several legal challenges from both the left and the right. high-speed, like verizon, has filed lawsuits claiming that the f.c.c. overreached its authority, shouldn't be allowed to enforce these rules. time, we've got public interest groups and other who's want to see these rules apply to wireless devices which it doesn't currently so it's till? -- still in doubt. the f.c.c. is putting together an enforcement regime. it will take a complaint, someone caught discriminating against the sites. and that's going to be how we're going see whether or not it will play out. but court challenges, i think, are going to be the theme for the early part of the year. >> and will those court challenges happen early on? >> i'm uncertain about the time line, actually. >> gu oy lana, what else are you looking forward to? >> there's some miscellaneous issues in congress that we keep hearing.

congress pass a law in 2006 essentially trying to ban internet gambling here in the united states. critics of that bill say it's unethical. you know, people are still gambling online. let's regulate it, tax it that way consumers who do go online, poker or other games, you know, have some protection. so there was a bill that was introduced last year by congressman joe barton, congressman barney franks, who's retiring, some other folks to basically allow people to place bets online for online poker only. there's been a couple of hearings on that. congresswoman mary bono mack, whom we talked about earlier, her committee will probably have another hearing on that don't know if we'll see any actual legislation move. but you're setting to see more support for allowing people to gamble online, including some protections for consumers so that's one issue that i see at least some discussion on.

the other issue is the whole net sales tax issue. there's been a lot of lobbying on that. and that deals -- it goes back to a 1992 supreme court decision in which the supreme court said that you can't require retailers to collect sales taxes from customers in states where those retailers don't do not have is a physical presence. well, with e-commerce online, you know, main street retailers are saying, hey, you know, why are we still required to do this when online retailers like amazon don't have to? so there's legislation introduced that would essentially close that loophole. i expect maybe similar -- like i said, another hearing or two. i don't know if that is one of the issues this year. >> paul kirby? >> the f.c.c. is going to be asked whether verizon wireless should be allowed to buy spectrum from four cable temperatures. -- companies. and why spectrum wasn't built out so it's not a matter of it wouldn't affect competition in

terms of those companies will not be offering services and verizon would. there's marketing agreements that would allow the companies to offer each other's services, marketed the services, and that has gotten concern. d.o.j. will look at the transaction as well as the it's it is. the applications for the verizon deal with three companies as part of what's been filed, and verizon and cox applications will file applications. so that's going to get some attention. we don't have the megadeals such as t-mobile-at&t, but we have smaller transactions that will still get focused. we still have two f.c.c. commissioners pend in the senate. senator grass of iowa has placed a hold. he wants documents from the f.c.c. related to light square. and the f.c.c. says we only give the chairman of our authorizing committees, the house and senate congress committees. so he's placed a hold on those two.

the f.c.c. right now has three commissioner. commissioner cox's term is done so they can do their work with three. they have a quorum with three. but we're waiting on the other two to get confirmed. we'll see when that happens. >> if at&t, t-mobile, one of the big issues of 2012 -- 2011, is it gone? no more? any further developments in that in 2012? >> i would say we'd have to wait -- i think if the administration, the election results in a republican administration, i wouldn't be surprised to see at&t try at it again. the democrats in the justice department, the justice department career people as well as the f.c.c., made it clear they have concerns about the merger it wouldn't surprise me to see something else. it was made clear with the merger we think there need to be four nationwide carriers so that would, under the current administration, seem to preclude t-mobile and sprint from merging. people have looked at before at&t said we want to buy t-mobile, people thought

t-mobile and sprint. i think if you had a new add mornings, you could -- administrations, you could see at&t go after t-mobile or perhaps sprint and t-mobile. >> what is the status of the f.c.c. and media ownership? is there going to be action there? anybody know? >> our media -- we don't cover media as kind of the strict telecom, if you will. >> next issue? >> one thing we'll be tracking closely is cyber security. this has become increasingly something that's come to the forefront by some of -- like of these other issues, took a while. we've been talking about cyber security for 10, 20 years. now as a result of some of these data breaches, as a result of some of these high-profile events, and the increasing reliance of our society on internet to run critical sectors of our economy and infrastructure, there's an awareness this is very real. question essentially vigilante

hack groups online taking aim at constitutions and companies part of the infrastructure. so the awareness of the issue is at an all-time high. what type of action that will amount to remains very much in doubt. >> and on that issue, we've seen the house has been a little bit more active in recent months. there's been two bills introduced. one by the house intelligence chairman, and then another one by the chairman of the homeland security subcommittee. so the idea that they might have mesh those into one bill, bring them to the floor. there are concerns with each bill. so that's -- that will have to be dealt with this year. >> what kind of influence do the national association of broadcasters, the national cable telecommunications association, ttia, all of these interest groups have in washington right

now? >> i think the influence is maybe waned a little bit in recent years. i think we've seen that with the spectrum debate. were verye they powerful. so i think maybe their influence has waned a little bit in recent years. >> have you seen an increase in facebook and google activity in the legislative process, the regulatory process? >> certainly the washington lobbying offices, years ago they didn't -- really, they were kind of new to this. kind of like not too many years ago microsoft wasn't active before antitrust issues. so, yeah. they kind of bolstered there. if you look at who they have a lot of former hill staffers, depending upon the issue they can hire outside folks including former members of congress so i think they've increased our lobbying a lot. and i agree with -- you know, industry -- i guess you always have to be careful because you can over play your hand. at&t, t-mobile mergers, some

people thought at&t maybe overplayed their hands. had a huge amount of money. they had four billion reasons to get through it. and some felt like, you know, when you have the ymca of san diego weighing in on it well, jeez why do they care? well, because they had an interest in what happened to at&t. so i think the groups are still powerful, a lot of the washington-based groups. but they have to be careful now. and washington, of course, you have what's called as electro turf groups where you have these seemingly innocuous names weighing in but they're funded by the major trade groups and companies and that kind of thing. the reporters see to that. you would think people in congress do but that's not necessarily the case. there are always going to be players, if you will. they have to be careful how they do it. >> i would say that actually -- while i don't disagree that the spectrum may have diminished and i haven't covered some of the issues as long, but the influence of some of these

groups is much greater than the public is probably aware. technology issues are really seen through the lens of telecom policy issues. that's what technology policy has been for the last century. the internet is only used widely by public for about 15, 20 years. the f.c.c. has been regulating at&t and the phone system for 90 years so these relationships go back very far. the ntta, the broadcasters, all of the groups that are involved in technology policy is sort of really the insiders' insiders group in the beltway. to people who are main street type consumers or people who just follow political issues in a more casual manner, they might think that the influence of the google or a microsoft or a facebook would be much greater than it is based on the impact of the broader cultures. but they are still, i think, even though they've ramped up significantly in the last year due to some of these policies, they system remain well behind some of the sophistication of the operations that these groups that have been around for a long

time have. >> one minute left. very quickly, we've talked in 2011 with a lot of our legislative guests about potential rewrites of the telecommunications act. is there an appetite for that? paul? >> no. a guest onre was recently, actually, gordon smith of the nationality association of broadcasters and talked about maybe little piece. but, no, you're not going have anything major like that a rewrite in an election year. you're going to get close to the election. people will want to get out of here. more and moret heated. we'll just continue to talk about it for the rest our livers. you won't see it this year. >> i agree. i haven't heard anybody talk about that as being on the agenda this year. >> do you see it potentially after the election? >> hard to say. >> maybe in little pieces. >> and it depends who's in charge of congress. if republicans win the senate, i don't know if they'll want to pick up that.

>> i've heard discussion on the communications act and things that need to be addressed, but that's an aircraft carrier as opposed to something that you can turn around very quickly. >> thank you all for being part of our legislative preview for 2012. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] is liveington journal" sunday from manchester, new hampshire, ahead of tuesday's first in the nation presidential primary. the representative debbie wasserman schultz will talk about president obama's campaign in new hampshire. also, ralph nader, former presidential candidate and consumer advocate, on his latest book, "only the super rich can save us" and later, michael singh of the washington institute talks about u.s.-iran relations. watch "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern every day here on c-span.

>> on "newsmakers" a preview of the january 21 south carolina primary with chad connelly, chairman of the south carolina republican party. he talks about how the south figures into presidential politics. >> if you really want to see the candidates, c-span's "road to the white house political coverage" takes you on the campaign trail. >> go to town halls, campaign rallies and meet and greets.

>> thank you for coming. it was enjoyable. >> it's a pleasure to have a listening ear. thank you for giving one. >> i do have a question for you. >> sure. >> you talked about bringing manufacturing back. what are some of the plans to do that? are you planning on taxing some of these big companies for shipping work overseas? >> i want a tax code that clears out all of the loopholes -- >> watch the new hampshire primary coverage on c-span television and on our website, c-span.org. >> i know president obama came in talking about the reform. everybody leans on the defense ministry and the military to neck down. and people leave out the one part that will make a difference, which is lawmakers, you know, go ahead and lose hundreds of jobs in your district. right? that's how that falls. that's where it always stops.

>> as editor of military.com, ward carroll provides news, information, and support. sunday he'll discuss how american tax dollars are spent by the defense department and current procurement procedures at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> on friday, president obama visited the consumer financial protection bureau in washington, d.c. he thanked the bureau's leader and employees for their hard work over the last several months and urged them to continue their work to protect all consumers. during his remarks mr. obama also said while the december jobs report showed progress, there's still plenty to do to sustain the economic recovery. his remarks are about 15 minutes. >> i am very pleased to have the president of the united states here with us today. this is a very important week

for all of us. it's a very important week for the bureau. it's a very important week for the country. the president is someone who understands the important role consumer finance plays in the lives of every american. consumer financial products and services can help each of us achieve our dreams. but when risks are not clear and fees are hidden, they can make our lives much marredder -- harder. saw that just the other day when we visited an eldery couple in cleveland, ohio, and heard their personal story about predatory lending first-hand. predatory lending that almost cost them their precious home of many years. because the president understands this, going all the way back to his days of community organizing, helping working class families cope with their struggles on the streets and in the neighborhood of chicago, he has been a strong supporter of rule to the road that makes the consumer financial system safer for all americans. we are now an independent federal agency. we are responsible by law to act in the public interest to

protect american consumers in the financial marketplace. to do our job well, we will be reaching out and working with public officials from both sides of the aisle and from every part of this country including not only the president but senators, representatives, federal officials, and state and local leaders who want to work with us as we stand up for consumers. we are proud of the work that you all do. and we wanted the bries to see it firsthand so it is my pleasure to introduce to all of you and a welcome to the consumer financial protection bureau, the president of the united states. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you. thank you. well, it is wonderful to see all of you. i thought i would just drop by

to help your new director move in. he's been a little busy. so i thought maybe some boxes, a little plant. i also just wanted to say hello to all of you who have just been doing extraordinary work in standing up to what i think is going to be one of the most important agencies for people that there is. i know that all of you have devoted enormous amounts of time and energy. many of you are here making significant being a fieses -- sacrifices with your families to make sure that this agency gets up and running really well. so i just really wanted to say thank you to all of you. let me begin by saying a few words about the latest economic news. this morning we learned that american businesses added another 212,000 jobs last month. all together more private sector

jobs were created in 2011 than any year since 2005. there are a lot of people -- [applause] there are a lot of people that are still hurting out there. after losing more than eight million jobs in the recession, obviously, you know, we have a lot more work to do. but it is important for the american people to recognize that we've now added 3.2 million new private sector jobs over the last 22 months. nearly two million new jobs last year alone. so after shedding jobs for more than a decade, our manufacturing sector is also adding jobs. that's two years in a row now so we're making progress. we're move in the right direction. and one of the reasons for this is the tax cut for working americans that we put in place

last year. and when congress returns, they should extend the middle class tax cuts for all of this year to make sure that we can keep this recovery going. it's the right thing to do. there should not be delay. there should not be a lot of drama. we should get it done. and the american people, i think, rightly understand that there's still a lot of struggles that people are going through out there. a lot of families are still having a tough time. a lot of small businesses are still having a tough time. but we're starting to rebound. we're move in the right direction. we have made real progress. now's not the time to stop. so i would urge congress to make sure that they stay on top of their jobs to make sure that else is able to enjoy hopefully an even more robust recovery in 2012. so the economy is moving in the right direction. we're creating jobs on a consistent basis. we're not going let up, not until everybody who wants to

find a good job can find one. but we have a responsibility to do even more than just try to recover from this devastating recession and financial crisis. we have a responsibility to make sure that the economy that we're rebuilding is one where middle class families feel like they can get ahead again. a lot of the problems that we're dealing with are problems that existed even before the recession, even before the financial crisis. for a decade or more middle class families felt like they were treading water, that they were losing ground. and what we want to do is make sure not just that we're getting back to the status quo. we want to make sure that we're dealing with those underlying problems. getting to a point where middle class families feel like they can get ahead again, where hard work pays off again, where everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share, and serve playing by the same set of rules.

and that's where you all come in. every one of you here has a critical role to play in making sure that everybody plays by the same rules. to make sure that the big banks on wall street play by the same resumes as community banks on main street. to make sure that the rules of the road republican forced. and that a few bad actors in the financial sector can't break the law, can't cheat working families, can't threaten our entire economy all over again. that's your mission, to make sure that the american people have somebody in their corner, that american consumers have somebody who's got their back. and you've finally got a great director who is tailored made to lead this agency. [cheers and applause]

you've also got an extraordinary team that is lined up behind me here who did a great job in getting this agency up and running and are going to continue to show extraordinary leadership in all the various issue that you're going to be addressing. and i also want to give a special shoutout to the woman who dreamt up this agency and spent so much time turning it into a reality. our friend, elizabeth warren. [cheers and applause] just to be a little more specific, millions of working americans use financial products like credit cards, student loans, and mortgages. and that's a good thing. these products have a tremendous potential to make people's lives better. byproducts to earn an education, ad for a foam, raise a -- afford

a home, raise a family. we all use them. but when they're sold on n an irresponsible fashion, they can also make life brutally hard on people. they can turn the dreams of a family into a nightmare. things like hidden fees, traps on credit cards, student loans. cost working americans billions of dollars. things like subprime loans and skyrocketing interest that you can't escape, cannot only bring families to their knees but the entire economy to its knees. richard just mentioned the example of this elderly couple that we met when we were in ohio yesterday. these are folks -- the gentleman was a marine who served in korea. they had been married for 42 years. he had worked all his life. they had poured their savings into this home.

because of a code violation -- they're on a fixed income. they don't have a lot of money. they thought, well, maybe we can get a loan to make some modest repairs. and what initially was promised as an $8,000 line of credit to make these repairs ended up being an $80,000 debt with no repairs that threatened them going into foreclosure. those kinds of stories are replicated all across the country. it not only hurts those individuals, it hurts the entire economy. that shouldn't happen. not in america. that's why we're here. we're here to put an end to stories like these. and already your work is making a difference. the know before you owe campaign. you've been working on it for months. it's doing three big things. it's making home loan applications for transparent so that families will know what

they owe on their mortgages. it's making it easier for students to compare financial aid package and know what they owe each month when they graduate. i could have used that. [laughter] it's making -- in fact, i've got a law school classmate here who she probably went through the same thing i did. it's making credit card agreements short and simpler so that credit card holders will noted what they owe and what they're getting into. and i know that folks all across america have been sending in their stories to help shape these new initiatives. this is not something where it's just a washington top down process. your gathering the experiences of individual families, seeing how they got hurt, how they might have gotten cheated. and that's helping to define how you enforce these rules. and that's vitally important. and now that richard is your director, can you finally exercise the full power that this agency has been given to protect consumers under the law. now that he's here --

independent mortgage services, loan providers, they're all bound by the same rules as everybody else. into longer are consumers left to face the risk of unfair or deceptive or abusive practices. not anymore. so we can make sure that folks don't lose their homes or their life savings just because somebody saw them as an easy target. we can make sure the students don't start out in life battled with debt that they can never pay back just because of the lousy deal. we can safeguard families with seniors and veterans from toxic financial products. can help give everybody the clear and transparent information that they need to make informed financial decisions and have companies compete for their business in an open and honest way. that's richard's commitment. that's my commitment. that's the commitment of everybody standing on this stage. and that's your commitment. that's why this agency is so

important. so i want to thank all of you for choosing to serve your country in these challenging times. your mission is extraordinarily important. it's vital to the strength of our economy. it's really important to the security of working families. and i know that it might be personal for some of you. you may know a friend or a family member whose life was turned upside down because of some of these unsavory practices that this agency is designed to rout out. we're not going let those folks down all across the country. when i meet americans all across the country or i read letters i get every night, you know, they don't really ask for much. looking for a handout. they're not looking for special treatment. they just want a fair shake. they just want a fair deal. and we have a chance to give it to them so let's do everything that we can to make sure the

middle class families can regain some of the security that they've lost over the last decade. let's help to protect what they've worked so hard for. give them the chance to hand it down to their kids. i know you guys are ready to go to work. i am, too. i couldn't be prouder of you. so congratulations. richard? cheers clears. [cheers and applause] ♪

>> she looks like she could be my daughter. you have good genes. how are you? nice to see you. thank you. keep up the good work. >> thank you very much. >> thank you so much. thank you so much. thank you. thank you very much. >> i was on your campaign. >> way to go. [laughter] >> thank you so much. going to be a priority. you come back safe. all right? wonderful to see you. thank you so much. thank you, sir. keep up the good work. thank you very much. thank you.

>> thank you for coming. >> it was fun. thank you. thank you. you.ank ♪

>> on "newsmakers" a preview of the january 21 south carolina primary with chad connelly, chairman of the south carolina republican party. he talks about how the south figures into presidential politics. >> every weekend on "american history tv," the people and events that tell the american story. tonight, professor andrew smith on the significance of the new hampshire primary. at 10:00, "confederate daughters" author on how upper

class southern women viewed the north. and the post coverage of vietnam, watergate, and president nixon's resignation. "american history tv" this weekend on spinning c-span3. >> in his week lay dress president obama talked about his new year's resolution to keep the economy moving forward. discusses the unemployment report. and he also commented on his decision to appoint the head of the consumer financial protection bureau. then the republican address by freshman u.s. representative nan hey worth on the house g.o.p. job bills. she also notes the one-year anniversary of the shooting of her house colleague, arizona representative gabrielle gifford. >> happy new year, everybody. this week i traveled to to talk abouto folks about the biggest challenge we face as a country, rebuilding our economy so that once again hard work pays off,

responsibilities are rewarded, and anyone, regardless of who they are or where they come from, can make it if they try. that's the economy america deserves. that's the economy i'm fighting every day to build. now to get there, the most important thing we need to do is to get more americans back to work. over the past three years we've made steady progress. we just learned that our economy added 212,000 private sector jobs in december. after losing more than eight million jobs in the recession, we've added more than three million private sector jobs over the past 22 months. we're starting 2012 with manufacturing on the rise and the american auto industry on the mend. heading in the right direction. we're not going to let up. on wednesday, the white house will host a forum called "insourcing american jobs." we'll hear from business leaders who are bringing jobs back home and see how we can help other businesses follow their lead. because this is a make or break

moment for the middle class and all of those working to get there. we've got to keep at it. we've got to keep creating jobs and rebuilding our economy so that everyone gets a fair shot, does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules. we can't go back to the days when the financial system was stacking the deck against ordinary americans. to me that's not an option. not after everything we've been through. that's why a pointed richard cordery as our new consumer watch dog this week. richard's dog is simple, to look for you. every day his sole mission is to protect consumers from potential abuses by the financial industry and to make sure that you've got all the transparent information you need to make the important financial decisionses in your lives. i've nominated richard for this job last summer. yet republicans in the senate kept blocking his confirmation. not because they objected to him but because they wanted to weaken his agency. that made no sense. every day we waited was a day

you and consumers all across the country were at greater financial risk so this year i'm going keep doing whatever it takes to move this economy forward and to make sure the middle class families regain the security they've lost over the past decade. that's my new year's resolution to all of you. thanks. have is a great weekend. >> hello. i'm representative nan heyworth from new york. as always, the new year's brings fresh hopes and aspirations. unfortunately, too many of our fellow citizens begin with worries about keeping their jobs and paying their bills. finding work in this economy remains a struggle. and friday's jobs report is the latest evidence of that. three years ago at this time the incoming obama administration its stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%. unemployment has now been above 8% for 35 straight months, the longest such stretch since the great depression.

ruffle 13 million americans are looking for jobs. leaders in washington should have no higher priority this year than getting our economy back to creating jobs. the foundation for action is already in place. right now there are nearly 30 jobs bills passed by the house with support from both republicans and democrats that are awaiting action in the democratic-run senate. the republican plan for americas job creators is designed to empower small businesses and get government out of their way. one vote is all each of these jobs' bills needs to get to the president's desk. and it's disappointing the senate hasn't acted. senate hasn't acted. after all, these proposals were common sense priorities like addressing regulations, encouraging entrepreneurship, and making washington live within its means. one of these bills in fact work implement key elements of the president's own plans, including tax incentives for business

expensing, a full year extension of payroll tax relief, and a full-year extension of the federal contribution to unemployment insurance. serve as one of the negotiators ready to work with our democratic counterparts to get a full-year payroll tax cut enacted into law. while the republican-led house has passed a full-year extension of the payroll tax holiday, the senate controlled by the president's own party has not. more job bills are in the works. in the coming weeks, the house will consider job creating proposals to reduce unnecessary and burdensome regulations as -- instead of just spending more on short-term fixes, weed a be permanent i -- we'd be permanently removing barriers to job creation. we hope these bills won't become bottled up by partisan politics as well. indeed, all of this requires the help and the leadership of the president. we're hopeful that president obama in his state of the union

address will express a willingness to work with republicans to enact all of these jobs' bills. the american people know we have our disagreements, but they lightly -- rightly expect to us work together to find areas where we can agree and act. republicans remain ready and willing to do just that. finally, you may recall that last year's state of the union address occurred in the shadow of one of the saddest days in recent memory. one year ago this sunday a madman opened fire on representative giffords and her outside a grocery store in tucson, arizona. six people were killed, including gabe zimmerman, an aide to the congresswoman. in those difficult hours americans reminded the world that no act of violence would silence the dialogue of democracy. all of us who had the privilege to serve with gabby, continue to pray for heir recovery. we remain grateful to those who sent thoughts and prayers to her, to her family, and to all

of those who were affected. in the year ahead, spirit of service and fellowship can inspire us in washington. we can be honest about the we can be honest about the challenges we face. and we can be equal to the task. thank you for listening. and god bless america. i didn't speak and i didn't give really a window into my life, i had become kind of an evil cartoon. i didn't help myself with wearing a hat coming out of my plea in court. but i had become kind of a villain. i wanted to show people i'm not an evil person, i'm a regular person. i did smiths that were wrongs are but i don't have is a tail, horns. i grew up like everybody else. >> this weekend on "afterwords," power and corruption on capitol hill. once the most influential lobbyist in washington, jack yabe ramoff was con -- jack abramoff was convicted.

his story tonight. also, juan gonzalez on the role of segregation and the way news reports it. and margarie ross on what it takes to be a successful female publisher and author. "book tv" every weekend on c-span2. >> next, a mitt romney campaign rally. after that, newt gingrich holds a town hall meeting. then, rick santorum of the town hall meeting. mitt romney held a campaign erry, new hampshire. new hampshire holds the first in the nation provincial primary on tuesday.

-- presidential primary on tuesday. [applause] [applause] >> good morning. how are you doing today? it is wonderful to be with you here, in pinkerton.

i have the privilege of representing you in the senate. why are we here this morning? we are here because we are worried about america and the future of the american dream. that is why i am here. that is why i ran to represent you in the united states senate. i love our country. i love my two children. four years old, seven years old. i am really worried about the future our great country. but, i am so encourage because i am here today with mitt romney. [applause] we have a president right now, if you think about the state of our country, we have

accumulated $15 trillion in debt. under this president, we have accumulated $5 trillion of that debt. we lost 1.7 million jobs in this country. ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford another four more years of barack obama. [applause] so, on tuesday, you have the opportunity here, in the granite state, the live free or die state, to nominate someone for president of the united states of america who is a strong conservative leader.

someone who has private sector experience. who actually knows how the economy works and how to get america working again. [applause] that person is mitt romney. you also have the opportunity to nominate someone in the running who knows that we need to protect america. who will listen to his military commanders, when he serves as commander-in-chief, instead of his pollsters and political advisers. he knows that we need to protect america. when you think about that $15 trillion in debt, mitt romney has the experience as governor where he had a deficit, he turned it around and made it a surplus, and balance the budget. unlike the current occupant of the white house. we need his experience in

washington right now. [applause] so, i am asking you, please, the future of america is at stake. the land of opportunity. the opportunities that we want for my children, your children, for this great country. that is what is at stake in this great country. you have the power on tuesday to nominate someone who will turn our country around and preserve the american dream. i ask you to get out on tuesday and vote for mitt romney. please, talk to your friends and family. do not sit on the sidelines. this is too important for the state of america. we are so privileged today, when you think about the

conservative leaders who are leading our country forward, to have a wonderful, wonderful conservative leader here today. the governor of south carolina, nikki caylee, is someone who is a fiscal conservative. someone who is pro-family and the mother of two children herself. she has proven it as the governor of south carolina. you can govern to make sure that you preserve the american dream. she is supporting that romney, as are so many conservative leaders across this country. [applause] it is my honor today to introduce the great governor from south carolina, nikki haley, and to welcome her to the granite state. [applause]

>> let me tell you, i am so excited. we had a blast in new hampshire. you know what i found out? the people here are the same as the people in south carolina, and all across this country. what do we want? we want elected officials to remember who it is that there were four. -- work for. they were for the people and not the other way around. we want an elected officials to remember the value of a dollar and that how they spend that money matters. it is not their money that they are spending, it is the people's money. they have got to be responsible with it. [applause] so, why is the conservative governor of south carolina coming to new hampshire to talk

to you? let me tell you why. in my first year in office, i knew that we would have to deal with unemployment. i knew that we would have to make tough budget cuts. but i did not know that the hardest part of my job would be the federal government. they get in my way every single time. the number one person that keeps me from doing my job is president obama. let me give you this one example of how we had to handle that in south carolina. we had this great company they're called boeing. they came and created 1000 jobs at a time that we really needed it. at the same time, they expanded their work force in washington state by 2000 jobs. not one person was hurt. president obama and the national labor relations board

came in and told them that boeing could not do that. for the last year-and-a-half we have said that we are a strong right to work state and we should have the ability to have those 1000 jobs. [applause] guess what? we knocked down their lawsuit. the second thing we said is that this is not just campaign talking points. no state can afford obama care. south carolina will go bankrupt if we try to pay for obama care. what we have continued to receive from the federal government, the me tell you what mitt romney said he would do. he said that day one, they would push to repeal obama care

from this country. [applause] we passed illegal immigration reform in south carolina. guess what, the federal government stepped in to say that we could not do that. the federal government said that if you have to show a picture identification to get on a plane, you have to do that for vote. guess what? the department of justice is fighting me on that as well. i have been sued by the union, the department of justice, the aclu, and last week jesse jackson was talking smack. you know who is helping them? president obama.

this is why i know that this is the right partner to have in the white house if i am going to be governor of south carolina. [applause] let me tell you why this matters. the main issues that we all care about -- jobs, the economy, spending, we have got to get it under control. what do you do? we do not want anyone that has anything to do with washington. it is chaos. we cannot have it. second, it is not what you say, it is what you do. and he has done it. when he had 25 years in the private sector, he fixed broken companies. our country is broken. he took a failed olympics and made it a source of pride. we need that cried again with this failing economy. when he went into massachusetts, he cut taxes 14 times.

-- 19 times. we could use that margin right now. -- use that in washington right now. [applause] michael and i are part of a strong military family. i will tell you that we need a president that will strengthen and back up the military. not weaken them and apologize for it. [applause] so, get excited, new hampshire. this is what i mean. we do not just need a win. we need a landslide. [applause] let me tell you why we need a landslide. guess where he is going next? south carolina. [applause] mitt romney is going to win south carolina, by the way.

make it easier for us, go out there and tell people to get out and vote. all eyes are on new hampshire. they are watching to see how strong of a support you will send him to south carolina with. take care of him here in new hampshire. i will take care of him in south carolina. and he will take care of us in the white house. god bless you. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. i am excited to be here this morning, saturday morning. thank you. you are the best. thank you. [applause] fresh from the landslide in iowa [laughter] could be double that number? i sure want to win. i tell you, do not get too

confident with those poll numbers. i watch them come and go. it changes quickly and can be very fluid. i need to make sure that you and your friends next door in massachusetts vote as well. you have a supportive contingency here, by the way. [laughter] we had a senate president named billy bolger. he used to joke that the fbi came to him and said that they had counted in the triple decker -- you know what that is, the triple decker across the street had moved 257 tons in the last election. -- had voted 257 times in the last election. you guys get out there, make

sure the vote. by the way, for me this is family. i have got family here as well. my sweetheart, anne. come on up here. [applause] >> you never know what is going to happen when he gives me a microphone. look out. i see lots of friends here. governor, john sununu, hello. i came in and saw two of my brothers year. wave. that was fabulous. we feel energized by being in this state. as in no, we have a summer home here. we know how beautiful this state is. we want to keep a secret, but it might not be if he becomes the next president. so, i apologize for that. can we bring up the rest? come on.

these are my sons. [applause] and jennifer. [applause] i did, yes. johnnie? my son ted. joseph, thomas, and jennifer. thank you for coming. >> his 16-year-old daughter would be here, but she slept in. [laughter] this is family for us. raise your hands again. one of her brothers is a doctor in california. the other in travels across the world. i was thinking of their dad and my wife's that.

dad. wife's the same person, by the way. he was born in wales. his father was a coal miner. he was injured in an accident at the coal mine and decided to take great risk to leave the country and come to america. he came here for the reason that all of our ancestors did. for opportunity. how many kids? four? they concluded that education was important if america was going to have a bright future. public education was available, but they knew they had to get college. but college was expensive. with the money that they were making, they knew that they could not afford college. they came together as a family to pool their income and give all of their money to one of them to get into college. they all sacrificed for that one to get a degree. that happened to be, luckily

for me, anne's dad. he got a degree, then he hired his brothers and his sisters, well, his sister's husband's. that should be the story of america. people coming here and achieving their dreams. i love this country. i love what it is. it is the essence of this country. i do not think that we have a president right now that understands the nature of power and freedom. i want to bring these things back to america so that we have a brighter future for our kids. [applause] at this academy, four years ago today, candidate barack obama was here, speaking. he said that he would bring big things to america.

well, he did. but they came with big price tags and they did not work out so well. he brought obama care. we do not want obama care. he brought massive deficits. he had been critical of the president, saying that president bush had large deficits. he has put in place deficits three times as large. if you look at the public debt of the nation's balance sheet, by the end of his first and only term -- [applause] he will have put in as much debt as all the president's prior to him. a big thing. a bad thing. this most recent thing, a huge, 2000 pages. the big banks are smiling. they have hundreds of lawyers to deal with these regulations.

it is the community banks. the banks to give loans to small businesses entrepreneurs. he says that after the many years following fdr, we have had a single strategy for our national defense. to have a military strong enough to fight two wars of the same time. hopefully never have to do it, but have the capacity. he change that policy as of a couple of days ago. he said he would shrink the military. let me make it clear, but the way. i want a military that is superior to any else in the world, by a large margin. yes. [applause] not just so that we can be successful in conflict, but so that we can avoid conflict.

a military that is superior to others, i want to protect america's strength and security. i do not want president obama's big, bad things. expensive things. let's protect america with a strong military. [applause] another big thing. how about borrowing $787 billion in a stimulus bill that promised to keep unemployment below 8%. we have not seen unemployment below 8% cents. -- since. it has now been 35 straight months above 8%. by the way, that is nothing to write home about. that is an exceptionally high level of unemployment. millions of americans unable to find jobs.

this president has failed in almost every dimension. i remember when he said on "the today show." he said that if he could not get this economy turned around in three years, he is looking at a one-term proposition. we are here to collect. we are here to take back. [applause] i am asked what things i will do to get people back to work. there are a lot of things. one, i want to get pioneers and job creators back to america. i want to get regulations working for industry. i want to get america secure in energy by using our oil and coal and nuclear. [applause] i want to open up new markets for american goods and make sure that when people she to and steal our technology -- no

more will china run all over us and we will pretend like it is not happening. [applause] look at the budget. people ask -- how can we ever balance the budget? a funny thing, we revel to balance the budget in massachusetts every year. [chanting from the back] we have some people that want to make themselves heard. how're you doing? [lots of chanting and yelling] we are lucky to live in a country where those people are able to express their views. i love that freedom in this great country.

it is best when we do it with respect and civility. let me tell you how we are going to balance the budget. we have the chance in massachusetts. this is the total contingent of republican legislators, it seems like, in massachusetts. it was 85% democrat and we balanced the budget every year. how did we do that? we went through, listed the programs, and decided which ones we had that have and some of the ones that were just nice to have, we eliminated or cut back on. i will ask the question -- is this program so essential that it is worth using money from china to pay for it? obama care is the first one on the list.

are, and the need to get our economy going again -- as important as it is to finally reign in the scale of the federal government and return to the principles of the federal government, i hope we recognize that this is about something even more defining, in some respects. that is the direction of this country and the kind of america that we will have. are we going to remain true to the principles that the nation was founded on? are we going to be a merit society? in a marriage society, people are able to achieve rewards based on their education and willingness to work hard, willingness to take risk. their success lists the only

themselves, but those that they employ and the whole nation. america's prosperous because of this society. when the founders crafted the society and the declaration of independence, they said we had certain unalienable rights. there recognize that in this land, like i and others, we would be free to pursue it as we choose. this would be a mayor of society. it drove us to be the most prosperous nation on earth. i know the people are looking for some other model. they do not like free enterprise or capitalism. i know this is not perfect, but it is a heck of a lot better than anything else has ever been tried. [applause] there are those that say -- let's not go down that path. let's not become a european- style welfare society.

where we take from some and give to others. it sounds good, it creates greater quality. but it also creates poverty. even in europe, which is not as free enterprise oriented as we are, the income per person is 50% less than in this country. it is an amazing thing, the power of what was crafted in this country. europe is not working in europe. i want to give america true to the principles that made it the hope of the earth. [applause] now, i have some favorite national hymns. one that i have been speaking about for the last few days is america the beautiful. you know the words of that, right? in iowa, i used to say that

corn qualified as amber waves of grain. for purple mountains' majesty. there is another person i love. o beautiful, for heroes proved in liberating strife, who more than self their country loved and mercy more than life. do we have many veterans or members of the armed forces here? raise your hand. thank you. thank you, sir. thank you. thank you. thanks, ma'am. what a patriotic nation. [applause] we love those that serve this great country. there is another first of which should not forget. o beautiful, for patriot dream that sees beyond the years. the idea was not temporary. it was enduring.

those that would change america, going in the right direction, bringing people back to who we are. a passion for the constitution and patriotism where a family could come together and sacrificed to give them the opportunity to live their family, and others. i will restore america to those principles. stop borrowing too much money. [applause] i want to make sure that we balance the budget and get americans working again. i want to make sure we are prosperous. that we have the military

capacity to stand up to our challenges around the world. we are the only people who put our hand over our hard during the playing of the national anthem. the tradition started with fdr and the sons and daughters of far off places. i love america. we love america. i am convinced that if we have leaders that tell the truth and with integrity, who know how to lead -- if they will draw on the patriotism of the american people, we can overcome a challenge that we have. i intend to be one of those leaders, with your help, on tuesday. thank you, guys. great to be with you. [applause] ♪ [born free]

♪ ♪

♪ >> how are you? good to see you. [unintelligible] >> our you? -- how are you? >> good.

you got up early on saturday morning. thank you. very kind. second time? >> thank you. we appreciate your service. [unintelligible]

>> thank you so much, a friend. thank you. good to see you. nice to see you this morning. >> did to get it? >> our you? -- how are you?[unintelligible] >> good to see you. [inaudible]

♪ ♪ ♪ [unintelligible] >> thank you so much. good to see you. hello, how are you?

>> thank you for coming. >> thank you. good to see you. hey, how're you doing? thank you. thank you. how're you doing? >> all right. all right. >> thank you. >> hello, how're you. how are you? [unintelligible] ♪

[laughter] >> thank you. thank you. how are you? nice to see you this morning. good to see you. thank you so much. how are you? how're you doing? good to see you. exactly right. good to me you. [laughter]

come on in here. [unintelligible] thank you. ♪

>> you go to school here? lucky you. do they charge you tuition? [unintelligible]

>> you did a good job. thank you so much. [unintelligible] thank you, guys. thank you. thank you, betty. >> it is not about conservatives today.

>> thank you. whose is that? is that yours? [unintelligible] >> would you mind doing a quick turnaround for my wife? >> sure. >> she is right behind you. [unintelligible]

♪ >> i know that you are the man to stop it. >> of body, how are you doing, buddy?

>> [unintelligible] >> ok. good to see you. power you? -- how are you? appreciate your coming by today. >> good to see you guys. good to see you this morning. >> our you doing? -- how are you doing? good to see you. [unintelligible] [cheering] [unintelligible]

>> hello, there. thank you for being here this morning.

>> i do my best. >> [unintelligible] >> thank you. >> [unintelligible] >> after governmental payment? >> [unintelligible] >> that is not what i said.

[unintelligible]

[shouting] ♪

[unintelligible] [unintelligible]

>> how are you? >> he is a great guy. what a guy. what a guy. [unintelligible] >> thank you. how are you?

thanks, buddy.

>> thank you so much.

>> what are you going to tell him? >> beat obama. >> thank you. [laughter] >> governor, governor. over here.

>> if you really want to see the

candidates, our campaign coverage take you on the campaign trail. go to town halls, at campaign rallies, and meet and greets. >> thank you for coming. it was enjoyable. >> it is a pleasure to have you here. >> i have a question. what would you do about bringing manufacturing back here to the united states democr?

>> i want a tax code that clears out the loopholes. >> what primary coverage on c- span television and on our website, c-span.org. >> net, our coverage from new hampshire, continues with newt gingrich. after that, rick santorum in a town hall meeting. then, a mitt romney campaign rally in derry. >> president obama came into office talking about procurement reform. people leave out one part will make a difference, which is lawmakers. lose hundreds of jobs i in your .istrict brig quite setback -- as an editor of a military.com, ward carroll.

>> republican presidential candidates continue campaigning this weekend, leading up to the primary on tuesday. now, newt gingrich. he was at a town all meeting with veterans at the right museum of world war ii history. he is joined by bud mcfarland and former new hampshire u.s. senator, bob smith. >> i have a special connection to wolfeboro, my son went to school here and was happy to be

here. i would like to tell you about the candidate i've endorsed for the president of the united states. the reason i've endorsed him is for the very reason i'm involved in politics. i haven't been in politics that long, it's my third term in the house and i moved forward in the speakership pretty quickly. one of the reasons i think i was able to is as i became involved and spent first term in the legislature, i began to realize that the republican party in new hampshire had a problem and the problem with this, we weren't presenting to the people of new hampshire a clear, conservative alternative. we weren't going to the people of new hampshire and unabash edly saying, we're republicans and we're republicans because we believe in limited government, we're republicans because we believe in liberty. we believe in personal responsibility. we believe in a government that should be a modest government, a government that should be turned to as a last resort, not the first resort.

a government that should assume that we're adults and that we can care for ourselves, that we can make decisions for ourselves, and when i came into the legislature, i was confronted with a republican party that when you talk to people, they had good instincts. the people i worked with had good instinct but didn't think the people of new hampshire would respond to that kind of message. and we'd spent just decades being, i think, embarrassed about being republicans, and we decided, some of us in the legislature, decided that the republican message, the conservative message is an attractive message, it is a message that speaks to what is the essence of being an american. and we just had to get out there and talk to people about it. and the failure to do that over time, not only led to decreasing numbers of republicans in new hampshire,

it led to decreasing majorities in the legislature and finally it led to four years of a democratic legislature. and during that time after we suffered those defeats, those of us who remained in the legislature said we're not putting up with this anymore. we're going to come forward with a strong, strong republican message and present to the people of new hampshire a clear alternative to what it means to be a republican and democrat, a clear alternative between what it means to be a liberal progressive and a conservative. and we think and we were right, that the people of new hampshire respond to that and when we did that this last election we were able to get 70% majorities in the house. and we decided the message

would be one that was successful on the state level and i submit to you it's a message we have to take to the people of the united states. that we can't any longer have those who bill themselves as the party establishment who say to us be embarrassed about being a conservative, be embarrassed about the strong message of liberty and limited government that we say we stand for but we don't nominate candidates who will premotor and that's the reason that i've taken a very, very strong position in supporting newt gingrich. we can't have a candidate who is a massachusetts moderate, a timid candidate who will go to washington and be the tax collectors for the democrats, go to washington and fix the problems that they've caused but not limit the opportunities for those problems to arise again, a republican who will

say i have to tax you but i feel bad about doing it. you are know, when we put the budget together in new hampshire, we made a clear choice. we said no more taxes. we're going to shrink government and we reduced state spending, this budget we just put in place, by almost 18%. i ask you among the presidential candidates who has the history of doing that, who has the experience of doing that, who has the principles of doing that, and it's not a one-term massachusetts governor who left with office having been elected with no other office with a 34% approval rating. it's the necessity of us turning around from this disastrous presidency, this presidency that's done us one favor. what he's done is shoehorned 50 years of creeping socialism into a three-year period and demonstrated the way this country it is going. he's done us this favor to show

change is needed, transformtive change and there's going to be one candidate here who has the history, the experience, the ability, the track record that will turn around this country, and that candidate is newt gingrich. i'm so pleased to be able to come to you and endorse him and ask you to listen to him and i think you'll reach the same conclusion that i have. now, before he comes on, we have a great american here who i want to introduce to you and that is just someone, i'm thrilled to have had the opportunity to meet, a true american, an american who has had a history both in the military and following his military career of defending this country and that's bud mcfarland. bud, if you could come up here, i'd appreciate it. [applause] >> thank you. >> good morning. thanks to each of you for coming out. this is a great, very warm show

of support for newt gingrich. i'll be very brief. the two blessings in my life i treasure most were having served for 20 years in the u.s. marine corps and secondly, working for -- [applause] >> and secondly, having had the good fortune to quork for president reagan for -- to work for president reagan for five years. [applause] >> i mention that because that record of service to our country was service at a time when the conventional wisdom was that we were going to have to endure a soviet threat forever, that there was nothing we could do about that, that it was a policy called detente. president reagan came to office and he said, this idea that things always have to be the

way they have been is nonsense. this is an evil empire, we can bring it down. we can reform our own government. we can make it smaller. these were heretical ideas even in the republican party at the time but he did it. and today we look at five days in -- five years in which he brought down marxism, ended the cold war, reduced nuclear weapons and in short, change is feasible with good leadership. in those years i had the good fortune to meet newt gingrich. here was another man who didn't believe things had to be the way they had always been. you could change them. you could write a contract with america, to reform welfare, to balance the budget, and actually do it. this is leadership of an extraordinary nature.

in the years ahead, we're going to face an uncommon, truly complex, daunting agenda of threats of national security. a family of threats that include cybersecurity threats, the ability of subversives to bring down our banking system, to mess up your bank accounts and credit cards, also your electric power grid and every electronic system that truly has begun to control most of what we do from dawn to dusk every day. you're going to face the continuing terrorist threats but now and in the future, threats that include the ability to use biological weapons and bring about mass casualties. you're going to face, also, the threat from iran and others, a proliferation of nuclear weapons. why do i mention these?

well, because somebody, our president, has to have given a lot of thought to these issues, to understand the nature of cyberthreats, and what we do about it. how can you harden our systems, improve them, make them resistant to these kinds of threats and overcome them? when i looked at the family of people running for office this year, there was only one that stood out for two qualities. first, having studied for years the nature of these threats, where do they come from, what is the nature of the technology, and how do we overcome them? and that was newt gingrich. nobody else has given thought to these things running for the presidency. and secondly, it's one thing to know the nature of the problem,

another to know the solution. and to be able to get it done. newt gingrich has gotten it done. who else balanced the budget for four years? moved the entire federal government to a very different way of thinking that we can do this and do it? he also brings to the presidency a knowledge of how to move the u.s. congress, how to have the courage to go against conventional wisdom, how to balance a budget, and at home and abroad, show the kind of leadership that president reagan did only 25 years ago. nobody else in this race has those qualities of knowledge and experience. i'm here because i believe in newt gingrich. he can do this. he's the only one who can do this. you've got to get out and support this man.

our country is at risk. he can do it. only he can do it. and it is an honor, truly, to be here today with you and to introduce the next president of the united states, speaker newt gingrich. [applause] ♪ >> ♪ only in america dreaming in red white and blue only in america we all get a chance everybody gets a chance only in america i'm going down on an l.a. freeway in the back of a limousine ♪

>> this may be the best venue, you know -- i have to tell you, i have two reactions. but first of all, i'm an army brat. my dad spent 27 years in the infantry so i grew up as a kid around systems like this, although i think this is a pershing we built right at the end of world war ii and was the first modern tank at replacing the sherman. and so from an army brat standpoint, this brings back lots of memories. now, from a political standpoint, i look at this tank lovingly because i remember michael dukakis -- [laughter] >> and it's just a reminder that governors of massachusetts don't always make good presidential candidates. [applause]

>> now, before i get start, and i want to say briefly some things about the two great people who introduced me, and somebody else i want to have chat a minute. we need to get him a microphone. you have a favorite son from right here at home who i was thrilled to get a call a while back, and he said, you know, it's so important that a reagan conservative win that he wanted to come and volunteer and spend virtually all tim just helping us and that's senator bob smith. i want to ask bob, come on up for a minute. do we have a microphone? [applause] >> there we go. bob, take a minute and talk to the hometown folks. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. speaker. this is his show and i just want to say thank you for coming and thank you for all coming to see speaker gingrich. you know, in 1984 when i was elected, i walked into the congress, didn't really know where the bathroom was and

here's a congressman from georgia who came over and he says to me, before you really get involved with all the minutia that happens here, are you content to be in the minority here and fighting this liberal majority of democrats, or do you really want to take the bull by the horns and take control? and i said, i think the answer is obvious. he said come on. and we met, about 10 of us, in a closet called the conservative opportunities society in the capitol. and it's true. we plotted the revolution. but it's not finished. and the reason why i left the sunny area of key largo to be up here in the colds of new hampshire is because i believe in this man. we need him so desperately right now. and i can't tell you -- i can't tell you -- i couldn't even put into words how much i mean that. he and his wife calista have produced this movie about ronald reagan. if you saw that movie and

realize all of reagan's dreams and all the things he wanted to do, we helped him in the house and in the senate in those days when reagan was there thanks to newt. we'd probably be still in the minority if it were not for him. and now we need to finish that revolution to honor president reagan. this man can do it. he has the philosophy. he has the conservative principles and values. he is a reagan conservative through and through. let's finish the revolution and elect newt gingrich. please elect newt gingrich right here next tuesday. >> thank you, bob. thank you. [applause] >> before i get started, how many of you are either veterans or families of veterans? virtually all of you. i just think we owe you a real debt of gratitude and i want to say thank you for coming to this veterans rally because

without your willingness to risk everything, you know, when you swear the oath entering the armed services, you're basically signing over your life to the commander in chief. i'm wearing -- this the flag that george washington flew at valley forge in front of his command headquarters. this is the flag of the commander in chief of the american army. and when they met in philadelphia, he presided over the constitutional convention. so when they rode into the constitution, the president is the commander in chief, they knew what they meant. he wasn't an advisor in chief, he wasn't a talker in chief, he was a politician in chief, he bears the ultimate, or she, bears the ultimate moral responsibility for the defense of the united states and the defeat of our enemies. that's how real this is. and when you signed up, you

gave that commander in chief control over your life. and because you did that, we are today still a free nation. and without our veterans, we would not today be a free nation. so i'm thrilled to be here. i thank you. two great folks who introduced me, speaker o'brien is the model of what we need. [applause] >> what he and his team -- and he's very good at always reminding you that it's the team. but what he and the team did when they confronted a budget deficit, they did -- i'm going to try to get every state to do this in the federal government. they did one of the smartest things i heard. my jaw dropped when he told me. they started by having the ways and means committee report how much money was coming in. they then said oh, ok, we can pass any budget up to that amount.

now, as you know, normally what politicians do is they figure out how much they want to spend, then that leaves them with a shortfall, so they figure out how much they have to take away from you. and they ended up cutting 18% out of the new hampshire based expenditures and 11%, if you count federal funding. now, i don't know of any state that had a more courageous and more direct effort to protect the taxpayers. they protected the average taxpayer in new hampshire nearly $3,000 in taxes. they did it the old-fashioned way. they had to set priorities, cut out waste, make decisions, everything the u.s. congress and president refused to do. and one of the reasons i'm campaigning is i would like to make washington more like new hampshire whereas the left would like to make new hampshire more like washington. and that's a very easy way to think of the difference. it's also a huge difference between speaker o'brien and his team who represent a tea party

conservative small government, low-tax movement, and governor romney who campaigned on a no tax increase in 2002 and passed a $730 million tax increase. most of them in the form of fees which were, by the way, mandatory. now, the two that are the most amazing is actually there was a tax on people who were blind. which is a little hard to imagine but true. and the other was a tax on gun ownership. he quadrupled the cost of owning a gun, so you had to register guns in massachusetts and then had to pay $100 per gun every year under romney. so it's sort of a tax increase on the second amendment right in my judgment. so the difference between raising taxes because you don't have the courage to cut government and cutting government because you refuse to raise taxes i think is a really dramatic difference. second, i'm really glad to have bud mcfairlien here. i worked with bud mcfarlane when he was national security

advisor. one of the reasons is a lot of the politicians who ended up in washington, bud came out of a military background and he thought his job was to help the president be effective, not maneuver around the president. and because he had in ronald reagan a president who knew what he intended to do, a president who was calmly and methodically determined to defeat the soviet empire, bud really played a decisive role in one of the most important administrations we've had because reagan actually had a clear vision. when i talk about being a reagan conservative, it's based -- i first met reagan in 1974, i campaigned in 1979-1980 and helped develop supply-side with art kemp and ludlow and others and worked with the reagan administration for eight years. it's a simple model. reagan set out to accomplish three things. he understood something really important about leadership, lions cannot afford to own chipmunks.

because even if they c567 them -- catch them, they starve to death. so lions have to hunt zebra and antelope. reagan got up every morning and said, well, what are my antelope? and there were three. rebuild the american economy, and he had a clear strategy i'll talk about in a minute. renew american civic culture so we're proud to be american. defeat the soviet empire. these are pretty big. he would then go in the oval office about 10:00 in the morning and chipmunks would run in. the federal government grows $10 billion chipmunks. these are big chipmunks. and reagan would list -- i'm sure bud recognizes this. reagan would listen patiently because he's a very disciplined, positive person. and he would say, you know, you are a terrific chipmunk. have you met jim baker? and jim baker, the president's

chief of staff, became the largest chipmunk collector on the planet. and i really learned a lot about leadership from this. the news media completely understood this. it wasn't that reagan was disengaged. it was that reagan had two boxes in his head, he had chipmunk box which is pat them on the head and get rid of them, and he had an antelope box which is get it done. i'll show you the difference. this is a great study in real leadership. so reagan wants to send a snag. -- a signal. he got down in the weeds if the weeds involved the big issues. secretary of state george schultz told me the story, reagan had gone to berlin as governor in 1967. and he said, that wall sure is ugly, they ought to tear it down. >> i was there. >> pretty good. >> 1965-1968. >> so he was there and the wall

was ugly and they should have torn it down. 20 years later, reagan has been re-elected president and carried 49 states. he's going to go back to berlin and he has this line he wants to deliver, mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. now, the state department hated the lion, they thought he made gorbachev feel bad, it didn't sound presidential, and it wasn't going to happen. so the speech goes from the white house over to the state department and the state department editor takes out the line. he goes back to the white house, reagan personally writes in, goes back over to the state department, they take out the line. mr. secretary, he goes back to the white house. reagan calls secretary of state and says georgie, you need to tell your editor i am the

president, they aren't. the line stays in. now, what's amazing is they get to berlin, that morning before he goes to give the speech, there are still senior advisors saying to him, please don't give this line. it's not going to happen. the wall's going to be there for 30 more years, you're going to look foolish. it's one of the greatest lines of his presidency and the wall fell in two years. and that's what real leadership is. real leadership understands the principles that matter, the correct vision of the future, and the courage to impose your will when every timid person around you is scared to death that what you're about to do is foolish, because as a leader you believe in doing what's right no matter what the staff thinks. >> that's right. >> and that's the key.

>> and that's why i think a bold reagan conservative can defeat bahama -- can get barack obama decisively and a timid massachusetts moderate will have a harder time. when you are facing a billion dollars and the elite news media and the white house, you want to create a big gap. i'm for american energy, he's against it. i'm for paychecks, he's for food stamps. i'm for lower taxes, he's for higher taxes. i'm for helping every american create jobs, he's for class warfare to divide the country. you want the gap to be this big because most of the billion dollars falls in the middle. now, we saw this with reagan. reagan took on carter. carter was sort of a milder version of obama. equally bad performance but not as wildly radical. and reagan really was able to draw such a vivid comparison.

it made a huge difference. so no matter what carter did in the end, the comparison stuck. that's why reagan in the only time they debated came up with there you go again and people knew what he was saying when carter would make a wild charge and reagan would say "there you go again" people would laugh and they got it. let me talk about two issues that relate a great deal to veterans and new hampshire. first i want to talk about the past. you will have my commitment to do everything i can to ensure that the only way that happens is it it is buried underground along state right-of-way and we have the technology today we don't have to choose between delivering electricity to boston and the tourist industry and the beauty of northern new hampshire.

we can insist on a technologically advanced solution which, by the way, the state can make money from by actually leasing part of the right-of-way so you also don't have to get into eminent domain and don't have to go to the taking of private property. i would suggest to you that allows us to have a win-win solution that enables quebec electricity to arrive in the big city without having run over everybody in between. i think there's no reason to assume that in america everybody in between needs to get run over just so that big cities and big businesses can get what they want. second, i think it is profoundly wrong that in mid winter, veterans have to go all the way to boston to get health care. and i'm committed to three things that i want you to know about for veterans in new hampshire. first, i'm committed to reopening the manchester hospital as a full-service facility, not just an outpatient clinic.

and i would like to develop a sophisticated center in the north country so you can get a high percentage of your diagnostics and treatments done so you don't have to go as far away as manchester. and third, i'm committed to an effective program that enables you, if you prefer, to use your local doctor and local hospital so you don't have to travel the country. so it seems to me, and i is a this as a start of a 27-year soldier and somebody who values military families and veterans families and knows what you have to go through. it seems to me all you ever have to do to explain this is get somebody off the congressional committee in late january or early february to come to northern new hampshire,

put him in a car and let them try to get to boston. and if you pick the right week with the right blizzard, they'll begin to get the idea, ok. and if they hit three moose on the way, they'll thoroughly understand why it's the wrong thing. anyway -- let me talk briefly about jobs and the economy and where we are because this is a big deal. and let me draw a historical comparison because i don't say much that's theoretical. i'm a history teacher by background and try to use facts and try to use history. last month we created 200,000 jobs. and the obama administration is dancing in the streets and this is really terrific and you have to -- i had to admit compared to some of the months they had, 200,000 beat nothing. but here's what we have to remember, in august of 1983 with reagan, we created 1,003,000 jobs in three months,

six times the number. why does that matter? you have a real crisis in europe that is sitting there with the euro decaying and european banks decaying. you have the potential for a real crisis in the middle east with the iranians practicing closing the straits of hormuz and the straits of hormuz have one out of every six barrels in the world go through it. if either of those happen next spring, this coming spring, you can see the entire world tilt into a much deeper recession. the only engine big enough to pull the world economy is the united states. . economy. when we grow, the sheer momentum of our growth changes things. this is one of the things of why i am running for president. we know how to do this. this is one of those things were the academic left and the

political left in the media left is so dense that you wonder what happened to them. it is as though they had a cookbook that says you take a hard again put in the freezer. [laughter] if you want to test this some time, you might want to go home and try this. an egg in a freezer for a couple of days and it will become hard. when you go to a restaurant and say you'd like a hard egg, if they brought you a frozen egg, you would think they were nuts. reagan have five principles for economic growth -- strong money, a sound dollar, lower taxes, less regulation so people could focus on to open orsahip, -- entrepreneur ship american energy [applause]

and praising the people who create jobs. what is the obama model? reagan is for sound money. bernanke and obama are for inflation. the amount of money they are printing now in the long run, they are starting up a wave of inflation on an historic scale. under jimmy carter got to be 13% inflation at 22% interest rates. reagan, lower taxes, obama higher taxes. reagan -- less red tape, obama -- more power to epa and osha. reagan -- more american energy, obama, anti-american energy. reagan, i love people a great job and i want to praise small- business owners and praise people go to work. obama -- let's attack ever when it was successful. is it any wonder you have this gap?

i have grown from the reagan model. i helped develop in the '70s and implemented in the '80s. it was a bipartisan model. tip o'neill was speaker of the house. if we were going to pass the reagan program, we had to get one out of every three democrats to vote for it and we did. we reached out to everybody. we tried to develop an american program, not just the republican program. i get to be speaker. there were two tax increases after reagan and the economy slowed down and i pulled out the same cookbook. two out of three people went to work or went to school and we pass the first tax cut in 16 years, the largest capital gains tax cut in history and we traded 11 million new jobs in four years and unemployment droppedto 4.2%. if you take someone off of welfare, unemployment, food stamps and you put them to work

taking care their family and pay their bills and paying taxes, you raise the revenue of the government without raising taxes. you reduce the spend a. clinton and i were able to hammer out four consecutive balanced budgets and paid off $405 billion of debt. that is the only time in your lifetime you have had four balanced budgets. [applause] this is part of why speaker o'brien and i identify with each other because we're speakers to believe in balanced budgets. in that context, what would you do today? i am for sound money. i would fire bernanke, shrink the role of the fed -- [applause] i would focus the fed on a stable dollar. taxes -- zero capital gains tax so money pours into the united states. [applause]

12.5% corporate tax rate which would free up billions of dollars from overseas and would allow american companies to compete on a fair and level playing field. at two 0.5%, general electric would actually pay taxes. [applause] 100% expenses -- no one realized how much precision manufacturing there is in new hampshire. what you want to do was at 100% expensing. if you buy new equipment, you write it off in one year. we want american workers to be the best equipped workers in the world with the greatest productivity. it is the only way to have a high value job competing with china and india. if you do that on the equipment side, i would also modernize the unemployment compensation program by having a training

requirement attached to it so if you need on and on the compensation, you have to sign -- unemployment compensation, you have to sign up for business training course to learn new skills while we are paying you but we'll never again pay anyone 99 weeks for doing nothing. [applause] >> we would abolish the death tax permanently because it is a destructive tax. [applause] at a personal tax level, you could keep the current deductions and red tape or you could have an optional 15% flat tax in the hong kong tradition. the one-page and here's my tax. if you do that, people have a choice. hong kong has done this for four years. we are not taking anybody's deductions away.

we're giving you the choice of simplicity verses complexity and you can choose. [applause] now you come to regulatory. pretty straightforward -- you want to fix this country quickly, i would ask the brand new congress and january 3, 2013 to stay in session. i would ask them before the inaugural to repeal of acare - [applause] -- to appeal obamacare -- it is the biggest job killing component of regulatory behavior. i would ask them to repeal the dodd-frank bill which is killing small banks. [applause] dodd-frank kill small banks and cripple small businesses and drive down the price of health. i would ask them to repeal

sarbanes oxley which has added paperwork and gained nothing. [applause] i would like all three of those done before january 20 so when i'm sworn in they can bring them in and i consign the repeal of all three and get to work in a positive way. on the inaugural, i would have a series of executive orders about two hours after the inaugural, the first of which would abolish all the while houseczars as of that moment. [applause] other regulatory reforms -- we should replace the environmental protection agency with a brand new environmental solutions agency. we should not retire any of the radicals currently trying to destroy the american economy. [applause] everywhere i go municipalities tell me how they are being dictated to by washington bureaucrats who have never visited their 10, have no idea about reality, have no concern

about the budget and simply issue washington dictates that are destructive. the epa is the largest job killing agency in the federal government. [applause] i would also go to a 21st century food and drug administration on a particular model. we want the fda in the laboratory understanding new science and want them to accelerate getting into the patient and not block it. that will change everything. they will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, dominate the world held market which is the biggest market in the emerging world, and it will enable us to get to patients better ways of saving their lives faster and a lower-cost. the duty of the fda is to turn it upside down -- it is today and obstruction to bringing new science to patients and it is stunningly expensive and it is guaranteeing that the breakthroughs will occur in china and india. our last scientists will go overseas to develop their

products. it will not work for the fda. that is regulatory. let's talk about energy. [applause] i have a very simple model. i am for every form of american energy. i want america and not just to be energy independent, what is to have a surplus of something happens in the straits of hormuz, we can step in and assert our productivity and make sure the world avoids a depression. i want to get to report no american president ever again bows to saudi k, period. [applause] the two-tiered venue -- as was the coolest place as i have done this. [laughter] the two last examples on energy

-- the president goes to. brazil the president has blocked american development of energy offshore and messed up louisiana and people have no idea how the world works. they put a moratorium and louisiana against the advice of their technical experts. they said was the dumbest thing they could do and i think the white house literally did not know these huge ocean drilling rigs move. these are very expensive pieces of capital. they will not sit around for six or a year to be political exhibits for a demagogue politician. the first one that left went to egypt. it took $80,000 per year jobs with them and when they drill oil, the government gets oil reg. it is a major source of revenue. the second one was perfect. the company that moved at a ceo who was tough. he issued the following

statement -- because of political instability in the united states, we're now going to develop all of the congo. under obama, we are less stable copngo and that is not easy. in the middle stop american oil and gas productivity, the president visits and says i really want to be -- i want to thank you and congratulate you for developing offshore oil and gas. i am proud that we were able to guarantee $2 billion of equipment purchases largely from company-owned majorities. he said the most amazing thing -- he said i want america to be your best customer. this guy really doesn't get it. we don't hire president's to be foreign purchasing agents. the obama model is to borrow from the chinese to buy from the brazilians. it does not work.

we hire an american president to be a salesman for american goods and services worldwide to create jobs in the u.s. selling overseas. [applause] [applause] finally, you have the spectacle of the xl keystone pipeline. it is one thing if the white house cannot play chess. it is another thing if a white house cannot play checkers. [laughter] but if a white house cannot play tic tac toe -- [laughter] let me explain why use this analogy. this is one of the dumbest things i have ever seen. the president has this dilemma. he is in total real auction mode. he does not care about being president. he cares about being reelected. so he will not do presidential

stuff, because that is so boring. giving speeches is so much fun. so he has this dilemma. the san francisco environmental extremists hate canadian oil. the construction workers union wants to build a pipeline because there is 20,000 to the 2000 american jobs. -- 50,000 american jobs. he does not want them union mad at him and he does not want the environmentalists mad at him. he thinks, being quite clever, i will postpone the decision to 2013. now, prime minister harper is a conservative who is pro- american. but he is also the canadian prime minister. so he says, you know, if the united states does not want to make a decision, i want to talk to the chinese about paying for a pipeline, which is more expensive, over the rockies to vancouver. the ideal pipeline comes

straight down, it is easy to build a it is fly. we have been building pipelines for well over 100 years. it should go from canada to houston. houston is the biggest petrochemical complex in the world you make money building the pipeline, running the pipeline, and make money processing the oil for the next 30 to 50 years. you make money in the port of galveston shipping oil. but harper says, well, you guys are going to mess around and be totally unreliable, i will go work with the chinese and we will build an off-canada pipeline. if you set three years ago that the u.s. would have a president so incompetent that a canadian- chinese partnership made more sense than a canadian-american partnership, i would thought it would be inconceivable. but i underestimated how self- destructive barack obama is. the last point, of course, as i like people who create jobs. i am willing to be pro people who create jobs, whether they're small business jobs, self-employed jobs, entrepreneurs, inventors.

what has made america great for our whole history has been in the words that are expressed in creativity and entrepreneurship. so the gap between us and obama is that big. [applause] i need your help tuesday. i need your help from now to tuesday, talking to your many friends. i do think there is an enormous gap between somebody who is a bold, brave conservative and somebody who is a timid massachusetts moderate. i think it is big. i think it makes it very different in terms of how you would compete with obama. with your help, if i become the nominee, i will challenge president obama to seven three- hour debates in the lincoln- douglas tradition with a timekeeper and no moderator. i will agree in advance that he can use the teleprompter.

[laughter] [applause] after all, if you had to defend obamacare, wouldn't you want to use a teleprompter? [laughter] and i think, with your help, we can win a decisive victory for america. we can make this one of the most important elections in american history. we can do what i helped reagan due in 1980 at what we did in 1994, which show a clear, cold distinction around which we can rally the vast majority of americans of all backgrounds. and as a result, in january of 2013, we can aggressively put this country back on the right track. and with your help, that is what i will do. [cheers and applause]

so -- questions? i think we have a couple of microphones. how about the gentleman standing back there? >> thank you for coming to wolfeboro. how big are your coattails? nothing personal. >> when we designed the 1980 campaign, i helped cheer the first capital event in history. it was written about in september 1980. reagan came and stood on the capitol steps with every house and senate candidate. we pledged five specific things. we won six u.s. senate races by a combined margin of 75,000 votes. we took the senate. we took the 33 house seats, as well as the presidency.

that was a team to victory. in 1994, we ran the team campaign, three under 50 candidates signed on to the contract with america. we had the largest one-parte increase in american history. 9 million additional votes with the republicans over 1990. 1 million fewer votes for the democrats. so i think it is pretty fair to say -- i know i designed sweeps that were team victories. my goal, as the nominee, would be to carry the senate by a big margin, to strengthen the house, and to do on an agenda. you can go to newt.org for the 21st century contract with america. it is not so much about cartels, -- coattails' that is about building a team. the entire team when 17. my goal would be that we have the ability to pass what we are going about by having an elected team committed to it. ok? >> mr. speaker, as chief executive, until you can get the epa shutdown and the department of education

shutdown, would you say the doors are closed? >> i am not sure i have quite that level of authority, but i can probably order them to re- review every single proposed regulation. get them working for a good long while while we solve it. [applause] >> last night, i asked your opponent how he felt about veterans, are there any veterans? there was just a smattering of us there, hardly anything. it surprised me. he said, how do you feel -- i said, how i feel about it when you sit cutting this, cutting that, i worry about my veterans benefits up there where i live. i live further north. he said, i am all for the military.

he dodged the question. and then i said i have not read anything about the second amendment with him. he said, i am for the second amendment. we know his record in massachusetts. back in 1995, i have a picture of you and me. would you sign it? [applause] remember that? just before you got on the helicopter. >> that is great. >> no one has ever called me slim. so i am writing this to you with great admiration. [laughter] [applause] all right, there's a lady right here. >> mr. speaker, thank you for being here. listening to you, it is like a

breath of fresh air. you know, i think so many people feel that. we need a leader. we need leadership. annie le, north korea has the largest military in the world. china, right behind it. now our present administration -- i do not even want to call him mr. president, but he wants to cut our military. what are your feelings about that? >> i think when you elect a radical, you should expect him to be headed that way. he does not believe we had any enemies, worries about what america is not a better country than it could -- you know, just listen to his speeches. he goes on apologizing for the u.s. he thinks we are the problem. my only advice is we have to defeat him. this guy is totally wrong. [applause] >> there is a bunch of us here that are getting checks every month from social security. you have in your legislative proposal to save social security.

what is your plan? >> my plan for saving social security is two parts. my mother depends on it, so i am very sensitive to this issue. she is a great deal of attention and e-mails me regularly to ensure that i not forget this. [laughter] i would say a couple things. one, i think we should take social security off budget. it was off budget until lyndon johnson combined it to a unified budget. he did it to hide the deficit. the reason why i would take off budget is what obama did in july was totally unconscionable. he twice threatened people and said i may pay social security. there is over $2 trillion in a trust fund. there is no excuse for any politician threatening anybody on social security, because the money is there. the money has been paid for. i want to say to politicians, keep your hands off social

security. so i would move to take it off budget, and i would provide that in the case of the debt ceiling problem, it was the second item paid after interest, the second item pay before anything else, just so people can relax. to say to people -- i had a guy walk up to me at a hospital in southern new hampshire months ago who said that his 87-year- old father was really worried that he was going to lose his social security check. now, for politicians to scare people of that age is just, i think, disgusting. so i think, let's take it away from them, make it automatic, put it over here, keep the trust fund safe, and not have attached. that is for your generation, and frankly, for your children. for your grandchildren, we have a proposal to allow them, the young people here, to allow them the right to choose, not

force them, allow them the right to choose a personal social security savings account. this is not a theory. galveston, texas has this model. chile, as a country, has this model. the principal group in iowa actually runs the chilean system. what does it mean? when you first go to work, you're part of the social security tax would go into a savings account that would be yours. no politician could touch it. let's say you started with a part-time job at 16. that means that for 50 years or more, it is building up compound interest. in the chilean and galveston expense, the average retiree gets two to three times as much money as you get from social security. both of them have a provision that says if you ever fall below the actual social security number, the government will make up the difference. so you have a safety net.

in 30 years, no one has gotten a check short. all of them have been above the social security line. what does it do? first of all, it means that you increase your estate. because, instead of transferring money back and forth, you're actually building up your money into an estate so if anything happens to you, your family now has your estate. there is an economist at harvard who was the chair who estimates that you eliminate 50% of the inequality of wealth over a generation, because every single american worker becomes an investor. they all end up having the state. then you change the fabric of american society. this is important for african- american males who have shorter life span on average and actually get back less from social security than any other group. so you really dramatically enhance every part of the community having more resources. the second thing you have is,

because you are saving this money, it gets invested. so the economy gets bigger. folks estimated that at the end of their lifetime, the american economy will be $70 trillion bigger because of the momentum. chile now has such a huge savings will come as a 2% of the economy is in the savings pool. they now allow them to invest part of the savings overseas because the chilean economy cannot absorb all the savings. compare that to our current mess. you would be totally safe. your grandchildren, totally safe. it is a voluntary program, and the ensure for social security estimates that 95% to 97% of all young people would pick it because it is mathematically so much more powerful than the current system. that is how we fix it. that way you can relax, your children can relax, and your grandchildren can relax. ok? [applause]

>> mr. speaker, i am 30 years old. i have a son and one on the way. my concern is the future of our country financially. i cannot vote for ron paul because it is dangerous foreign policy. but at the he is spot on with respect to how much and how aggressive he wants to be with respect to the amount we need to cut in spending. i understand he has a policy. he wants to cut $1 trillion over 10 years, which is just 1/15 of the $15 trillion in debt we are in as a country. it is not just balancing the budget, because that is not enough. what is your proposal for actually try to get on a path to cut our nation's debt? >> that is a very good question. by the way, i agree.

i think that ron paul's, particularly his view on israel and iran are so dangerous, and makes it hard to imagine him as president. i think his critique of the federal reserve has a lot of strength to it. i think his critique of spending has a lot of strength to it. a couple things. i say this from a background of being the only person who has actual balance the federal budget four times in a row in your lifetime. i think i have some credentials to get this done. first, you one very dramatic economic growth, because if you have big enough economic growth, it eats up a lot of the problems by the sheer momentum of scale and how much people start making. second, you want to control domestic discretionary spending. we control it twice in our lifetime. in 1981 as a junior congressman, i participated in the first real cut in domestic

discretionary spending since world war ii. in 1995, the second real cut. not slowing down the rate of increase, but actually going down. part of it is just to cut spending. i believe it to apply what that is $5 trillion over 10 years. i have to write a book called "stop paying the crooks," which looked at how bad the federal government is at managing payments, and our estimate was that in medicare and medicaid, somewhere between $70 billion and $120 billion a year being stolen. when i say stolen, i mean a dentist who filed 982 procedures a day. i am talking about stolen. so we went to american express, visa, and mastercard. we believe they could apply their anti-fraud mechanisms, using between $60 billion and $100 billion a year.

it does not count food stamps and student loans and other things that it is in medicare and medicaid, we think again saved something on the order of $1 trillion over 10 years. i would close down some of the departments. frankly, the department of energy has been an anti-energy department. i would close it down. that would -- i do not know why we have a department of housing and urban development. i do not know why local housing authorities cannot be required to run local housing authorities and cut out 90% of the washington regulation. these are the kind of things that just grow and grow. i would fundamentally overhaul the washington houses. i would shrink the department of education dramatically. i would cut out the regulations but is in the power back over to states. i would say you have got to figure out how to solve education. the federal government cannot, and by the way, should not. i do not want that level of power in washington, d.c. [applause] so my goal would be to try to get to -- it took us three years to balance the budget when

i was speaker. this is a much bigger mess. my goal would be to try to get to a balanced budget within five years, to be very aggressive. you are right, you then have to run a surplus for enough years that with a combination of economic growth and control of spending, i think our goal should be to get our debt down to about 40% of gdp. if you did that, you pay off all the chinese debt and you have a very, very stable environment in terms of your fiscal situation. there is a guy right up here. he is coming to your right now. >> good morning, mr. speaker. 20-year air force veteran, and two things i have in mind. one is, would you return us to a bare minimum of don't ask,

don't tell policy in the military? and, two, what about repealing 100% of barack obama's executive orders? [laughter] >> first, yes. i would go back to don't ask, don't tell. they want to go back to that. they have been opposed to what obama has been trying to do. the army and marine corps were deeply opposed to it, i think they are right. i would go back to don't ask, don't tell. while it is a great line and it is tenting, i do not want to say i would repeal all of his executive orders until i knew what all of his executive orders are. i certainly have a bias for repealing those, but i do not want to say yes. i will say, yes, i am for repealing all of this exhibit of orders. one of our dear friends in the press will find executive order number 205 actually makes sense. [laughter]

then they will run out and say that gingrich wants to repeal this, whatever it is that actually makes sense. my bias is in your direction, and i am committed to reducing all those executive orders, and a very substantial number of them will be repealed the first day. my goal is on inaugural day, about two hours after the address, to really shift the government by the end of the very first day. we will take reviewing his executive orders as a step in that direction. ok? [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. one of the tragedies of the clinton administration was the ranking of the patent office and the rules for patents. this has cost america daily, because basically we are being ripped off, both in medicines and inventions where we were very successful in the past,

adding to the actual foundation of our economy. do you have some plans for doing something for the patent office? and i had one request. when we close this, will you lead us in the pledge of allegiance? >> ok, i would be honored to. all right, the harvard person here. where is our microphone. >> here you go, harvard. >> in the first debate a while back, you stated that he would not increase taxes, even if they agreed to decrease spending 10 times as much. how do you feel like you will be able to do all these big plans when you are so unwilling to compromise? [laughter] >> well, because i have done it twice before. in 1981, we helped pass the reagan tax-cut program by getting democrats to vote with us. we appealed to the american people, and the american people appealed to the country.

they went to the congress and said, you have got to do this. when i was speaker, we passed welfare reform and got 101 democrats voting yes and 101 voting no. the country went to their members and that we have got to do this. part of it is you have to work with people. i am happy to what rate. i am not going to compromise. to compromise in washington means to sell out, and i am not going to do that. [applause] that may explain why i feel so strongly about this. in 1981, i helped pass the tax cuts. in 1982, president reagan was talked into a tax increase, because his senior staff did not believe in tax cuts. there were all establishment types. i fought him that year. and i stood firm on reaganism, which is no tax increase. he gave a speech, which is the only speech to give this president that failed, and

people watched the speech and read and explained why we had to raise taxes, and they all said, that was really weird. i wonder who wrote that speech. it was clearly not him. he wrote in his diary that this is the single biggest mistake of his administration. the democrats promised if you will raise taxes, we will cut spending. they got all the taxes and none of the spending. he said i will never do it again. when they tried to sell him on another tax increase, a famous story in the "new york times," or jim baker is trying to sell them on another tax increase and reagan takes off his glasses and looked at him and says if you believe what you just said, why are you in this administration? baker walked out and said we're never talking about a tax increase again while he is president. 1990, i campaigned very hard for bush in 1988. and one of the keys to his money -- he was 19 points behind dukakis in may. he won by six.

as one of 25 points. in the convention he said no new taxes. he went on and said read my lips, no new taxes. so he gets there and several people, including the governor, sell them on the idea that it is really ok to break your word and raise taxes. and they came to me and i said, no, i am not going to do this. in one book, it said flatly that i was the one guy who kept saying to them, this is a trap. the democrats are suckering you in to accept a tax increase to break your credibility and to get more money. so i fought him. 1993, bill clinton comes in, he wants to raise taxes because the liberal democrats tell them to. he did not get a single vote. one of the real reasons we want the house. so i start with a simple promise. i do not believe this country is under-taxed. i believe this country is

overspent. [applause] and i am light speaker o'brien. i believe if you push hard enough, you'll get the spending cuts. you have guys over here saying i will only vote for that if you raise taxes, and you almost know for sure they are going to try to not give you spending cuts. i would go in in a very aggressive program of saying, look, we're going to fight this out. but i would cooperate with democrats. i would reach out. i will give you one quick example. senator webb and senator warner have a proposal to allow to develop oil and gas offshore. half the royalties go to the fed. 37.5% to the commonwealth of virginia. 37% to infrastructure. i think the house republicans should pass their bill without amending it, just send it over, and say, here, here is a democratic bill with bipartisan

support, and make senator reid -- is he going to really bottle up two of his democratic senators? that is cooperation, because i happen to share the goal they want to get. that is the way i would approach it. i would cooperate. i would try to get things done. but i would not be willing to compromise core values, because i think then you are on the slippery slope, and then washington takes over. we have had too many competitions who are reasonable. -- politicians what are reasonable. they go to washington and say we have got to be reasonable. that can mean selling at. i have no interest in serving as a reasonable president who sells out the american people to appease the washington establishment. [applause] one more. somebody over here. this lady right here with the

sunflower dress. >> could you speak about your feelings on illegal immigration? i believe you felt sensitivity toward an illegal immigrant who may have worked hard. working hard is not on the dole. >> there is a very important example of cooperating without compromising, in my judgment. there are a series of steps. i do not think you could pass, and to reform. bush tried and failed. obama has tried and failed. when it is all on one bill, it is to be. step one, patrol the border. patrol the border by january 1, 2014. how do you patrol the border? one, you pass a law that says we're waving all federal regulations. control the border. you do not go through epa studies or doing this other stuff. you just do it. two, there are 23,000 common

security employees in the washington area. i am prepared to move up to half of them to texas, mexico, arizona to give you the manpower to go to war. -- to control the border. [applause] once you control the border, i would then -- the next step i would take would be to make english the official language of government. [applause] we have 86 languages spoken in the dade community college. i think there are 80 languages in manchester, because it has been a red the city. -- a refugee city. in cook county, chicago, over 200 languages. we need a single unifying language to bring us together as a people. it is clear english is the only language that could do that. three, i would increase the requirement to be an american citizen in terms of learning

american history, people actually learn what it means to be an american. candidly, a descending for high school students. i it would be good for them to learn american history. [applause] four, i would make legal visas easier to the current estate department process is a nightmare. we want tourists to come here. we want business people to come here. we want professors and students to come here. they're going to come here legally and leave legally, we will make it easy to do, not hard to do. five, i would make it much easier to deport people who shall not be here. if you are a member of an el salvadorean gang, we should be able to get rid of you in two weeks. it should not require two years of lawyering. you're not an american citizen but you do not deserve those protections. goodbye. ok? [applause] next, i would create a legal guest worker program, and what outsource american express,

visa, or mastercard, because they know how to run it without regard. having created a legal guest worker program, it would dramatically increase the economic penalties for businesses who are not obeying the law. remember, you do not get illegal workers without illegal employers. now you get down to the hard part. 11 million people already here illegally. they will have a hard time getting a job, because now you have to have a guest worker permit or you are an american citizen or you cannot get hired. most of them will go home and will apply for a guest worker permit from back home. they have deep ties here. sending the was a shock to some of my colleagues was, what do you do about somebody who has been here 25 years? remember, the community has been working hard, paying bills, married. the head kids and grandkids.

they may belong to your church. do you really think that america will send the police in to take some grandfather or grandmother out? as a friend of mine said, a real case, he said -- he had a constituent who was a marine serving in afghanistan and was faced with his grandmother being reported. you ask yourself, what do we do? here is my answer, you take the world war ii selective service board model, which is a local county board. you create a citizen review board. you can only apply if you have been here a long time, if you have genuine ties to the community, if you have been paying your bills and are clearly a member of the community in good standing, and if you can get an american family to sponsor you. if you meet that standard, you go before the review board. if the review board thinks you are a legitimate member of the community, you can get a certificate of residence, but not citizenship. but you are now here legally. you can get a job. you can continue the rest of

your life. if you then want to apply for citizenship, you have to go home long enough to apply. you get in line back home. behind everybody else. and that way, you do not have anybody getting the advantage. one of my competitors said two things that i think are just plain, pardon the language -- well, i will not say it. [laughter] my mother used to teach me, if it is really dumb, do not say it. so let me try to use a different word. i do not quite understand what their thinking was. two things. one, everybody has to go. i cannot wait for them to campaign in florida. [laughter] ok, and try to go into miami on the battle cry everybody must go. i do not see how they are going to win a general election. that is clearly going to come across in the immigrant

community as you have no sense of humanity for people. the second thing they said was, this is creating a magnet. this will increase illegal immigration. that is what i describe. here is a program where we are controlling the border, creating a guest worker program, having probably 9.5 million of the 11 million leave. you have to have been here 20 or 25 years and have a family and have a record of paying all your bills and have an american family sponsor you. what kind of magnet is this? you're going to say to somebody in mexico, guatemala, or china, you have two choices. you can apply for an american guest worker program or you can sneak in and in 24 years, you can become eligible for residency. this is just stupid. that is the word i was going to use earlier. i cannot help it. [laughter] you know what their reasoning is? desire to hit the other

candidate. that is all. since i said, and must be a bad thing, because otherwise it would be a good thing. you know, i think that is foolish. i have often said, you know, rick perry has good ideas on the 10th amendment. so i say, those are good ideas. he suggested that we start at zero in every foreign-aid program, and have to earn their way back into the budget. that is a good idea. i do not mind saying that somebody has a good idea. that does not mean a thing you should vote for him. he is a good guy. but, i mean, not as good as me. [laughter] [applause] anyway, this gentleman had a great idea. i want you to come up here and bring the flag. >> [inaudible] >> if they have been here that long, they are paying taxes. in order to be eligible, that would have had to be paying taxes. >> [inaudible] >> oh, the sanctuary. that is one of the things i would do in the opening day. i would say no century cities or any federal funds, period.

[applause] now, i want you to help lead us. i want all of you to join in. >> [all] i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you. [applause] >> everybody come this way. i would love to see each one of you.

>> thank you.

thank you for being here. >> i think town hall meetings are more impressive than debates. >> thank you for being here. we need your help. thank you.

>> this is tony. he does all our audio stuff. [unintelligible]

>> how are you? [unintelligible] >> how are you doing, guys?

>> gorbachev, tear down this wall. [unintelligible]

>> they are arguing internally. >> february, march of 1945. this one. >> was it capable of standing up to the panthers? >> yes. that is exactly what they wanted them. they had the capacity to do it. >> how would it go against the king tiger? >> probably not brilliant

against taking tighter. but the mobility of the king tiger was almost road bound. [unintelligible] >> that is correct. and i trained in the army, i grew up in 48. >> i remember the the great revolution coming in. >> i graduated from vmi. we were always told that first- round hits were important. [unintelligible]

>> we forget that the german border is gone and all that stuff that we did for a long time disappeared. >> having never served, they had no respect. the museum has three components. it is meant to talk about the american world war ii experience generally. we have a gallery that is just civilian. the home front. things that people experienced on the home front. we have others of their. >> we are in the process of

redoing the exhibits. we have an armored car. >> you have quite a collection. >> in the building here? >> what is our schedule? >> i will wait. >> let's go look at the tanks. [unintelligible]

>> you were very positive in your show of support. you were very positive here. you had a big outpouring of support. if you go after mitt romney tonight, might that not hurt your chances here? >> it reagan conservative and a massachusetts moderate

describes the difference between cutting taxes and raising taxes. for being right to life and putting planned parenthood into romneycare. i do not get this go after stuff. you do not need to do that. if your case is good, the trick is to try to find a good case. if your case is good, you can be relaxed and happy. i was with ronald reagan in the 1980's. i am happy that i voted for ronald reagan in the 1980's. >> you're not worried about coming across to viewers in it -- as-? -- as negative? >> i do not think that telling

the truth in a happy way comes across as negative. you would have to ask governor romney about how he feels accurately describing his record. >> [inaudible] >> how could i run for president and say forromney.org? that would be 2 feet. -- that would be goofy. i think that mitt romney covered it. >> how concerned are you about mitt romney winning new hampshire, iowa, and headed to the polls in south carolina? >> i am very concerned. we have two weeks to clarify that he is a massachusetts moderate with values that are the opposite of the south carolina republican party. if we do not succeed in getting that across, he might win. >> rick santorum will be

standing between you and mitt romney. [inaudible] romney alternative? >> i intend to be a reagan conservative alternative. it is not me against. i helped to develop supply side economics in the late 1970's. i worked with governor reagan as candidate and president reagan for eight years. i was speaker of the house. i helped to develop the contract for america. i think that i have a sufficiently positive agenda. three weeks ago, before the negative advertising, why would i have to worry about doing anything except going back to work and figuring out how to work past negative advertising? >> [inaudible]

>> not at all. none. not at all. >> [inaudible] >> i said that i would look into it. i do not know enough about the details of what he is discussing, so i will not jump into it. >> do you think that you could have done better in new hampshire of more voters could have seen you at town meetings like this one? >> talk to the voters the go to town meetings. we get very high conversion rates at town meetings. i am delighted that c-span covers several of them. it means you have several hundred thousand extra people that see them. >> other conservatives, reaching out to you and rick perry to get you to drop out and throwing your support behind rick santorum. have you been contacted? >> no.

>> your reaction? >> everyone is allowed to have an opinion. >> [inaudible] >> standard preparation. drink a diet coke, call maggie and robert, get their sophisticated coaching advice. slower, smile, shorter, clearer. >> do you talk to anyone about what you're going to talk about? >> maggie and robert. how many debates to people think that i want? you have debate coaches like them, what are you going to do? i could go to some of these guys, but why would you? >> [inaudible]

>> i think that we will one of going directly to the community and getting through revenue. the question of who owns the right of way in some places will be a city street or something that allows you to avoid the problem of having eminent domain over private property, allowing you to avoid ruining the tourist industry. virtually everyone i have spoken to in the north country says they have referred this solution and i think it is worth exploring. thank you all very, very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> is this a world war ii still mobile? >> the 10th mountain division started here. .

.

>> i have a question. you bring the vaccine here to the united states, what are the plans to do that. are you planning on asking the big companies to shift the work overseas? >> i want a tax code that clears out all of the -- >> watch the new hampshire primary coverage on c-span television and on our website, c-span.org. next, c-span's road to the white house coverage continues with rick santorum at a town hall meeting in hollis. and a mitt romney campaign rally in derry. after that, newt gingrich in a town hall meeting in wolfeboro. tomorrow, "washington journal" is live from manchester new hampshire where we'll hear from debbie wassermann schultz.

she's the chair of the democratic national committee. she'll talk about the strategy for 2012 and how the gop is countering the messages ahead of the primary. ralph nader talks about his latest book and offers his thoughts on the current political landscape and the prospects for a third party candidate. and michael singh from the institute for near east policy discusses iran and the u.s. presence in the persian gulf, washington journal, sunday 7:00 a.m. on c-span. rick santorum continues to campaign in new hampshire in advance of tuesday's first in the nation presidential primary. it follows a second-place finish until iowa. next, the latest in the family and freedom town hall meetings. this from hollis, new hampshire. this is about an hour.

>> wow, can everybody hear me okay? can everybody hear me okay? thank you, senator luther. one of two state senators here in the state of new hampshire to endorse us. i want to thank both of them as well as a lot of the state representatives, dan tamborello is buried in the crowd. he's been travelling with us. he's been leading the effort there. i want to thank all of the leaders in new hampshire for stepping forward and supporting our campaign. this is -- this is a -- wow, i'm a little stunned at this turnout. this is awesome. thank you, hollis. god bless you. thank you very much. we are -- we are travelling through today. i don't know about too many candidates with debates tonight running around doing debate prep with the people of new hampshire. so i get asked the question all the time, what do you do for debate prep, i say, this. this is what we do.

we take the questions from the people that we're going get from the panel tonight. that's what we're going to do. i want to say a couple of things to you, that is that as i think you realize from the fact that you're here that this is -- this is the most important election in your lifetime. i don't care how old you are, this is an election that's turning point election. what we see on washington, d.c. will put us on anner revokable force in america. someone who had served in public life before and thought it was over, my public service. i was going to grow up to do what a father of seven children should do, spend time with his wife and kids and provide for them and their future, like we all try to do every single day. karen and i made a decision that we couldn't in good conscious do that and see this see what's happening to our country happen

without standing up and getting involve in the fray. that's what the tea party did. god bless them for having done it in the election 20610. but for the tea party, we never would have won that election. so in advance, look, i don't claim to be a tea party member. i was involved in politics long before the tea party. but i have great admiration for what they did. they brought forth -- they got me in the habit of carrying this, the constitution of our country and the founding documents of our country and to remind me what this country was founded on and why we create it through those founding documents in those principles that make us americans. people always say, well, what makes america unique? it's not an ethnic group? we're not french. we're not british. we're americans by what we believe in, the values we share and hold in common in our founding documents. we're different from any other

country in the world in that regard, if you think about it. think of every other country. it's some sort of tribal or ethnic affinity. in america, that doesn't relate. we are america because we believe in certain things. and i always talk about this that our country -- i was doing a debate with howard dean. you remember him. your neighbor. we did -- i did a debate with howard dean over in northwestern university about two years ago. we were asked the question, what's the greatest virtue of america? and howard answered diversity. and i said, well, no, you got that one wrong. that the -- the diversity is a wonderful thing to respect diversity. but the key to america is the fact that people who are diverse the come together to be one. e.pluribus unim -- out of many,

one. so, for the greatness of our constitution is not the establishment of the legislature and this. the greatness is it created a structure where everyone can come together and have their say and fight it out. people who have strong convictions based on faith or no faith, people who have, you know, experience in one area or, you know, experience from another country. and can come to america and make the -- make, you know, work together to come with the common purpose, that's what our founders did. people in very different backgrounds and states and traditions came together with a corset of values that believed in free people. and that through free people, we could build a great society from the bottom up. now, this was fundamentally

different from where our founders came from. they came from count countries that rights didn't come to you as we said on the declaration from god, but rights came to the king, and then the king or emperor spread those rights around. we were different. it was revolutionary what america stood for. we transformed the world because we believed in free people, market, enterprise. the local -- the foundational principles of faith and family, building strong communities, civic organizations. what happens here in new hampshire. you probably as well as any other state hold on to those traditions of local government and locally trying to do things and citizen governance. you paid him a lot of money to be a state senator here. you might have been able to buy the tie with the money you get.

>> not even that. you understand doing things here in your local community, your church, your neighborhood. that's how you keep government limited and people free. right? [ applause ] >> you have a president that does not believe that. you have a president that believes that people can no longer in this very complex world handle freedom. that we need government to do things, more and more things for people so they can live better lives because smarter people -- smarter people who think these things out and plan these things and who have better education than the masses, folks in

flyover country, that they should be the ones to design the health care system, not the bottom up, not based on free markets, but based on government control of telling you every single thing, whether what benefits you're going to have, how much you're going to pay, what doctors you can see, all of those things will now be dictated on one part or the other as a result of obama care. your education system, top-down. we should have an education system that's focused on the parent who's responsible in doing what in working with the education system and designing an education system that's best for every child in america. why do we settle for less? you don't settle for less when you walk in a store. you walk in a store you say, well, give me what everybody else is getting. no. you get what's best for you. it's your -- it's your money. it's your right in the sense of taking your money and being able to spend it in a way that you believe is best for your child

or for you. yet, in our education system, it doesn't work that way unless you have an excessively large amount of money and you can avoid the system and go somewhere else. why do we accept something that's less than what we need for the country. that's a question i ask for people here in the new hampshire today. we have a vote coming up on tuesday. i suspect that's why you're here. that's why i'm here. we have a vote coming up on tuesday. and you have a choice to make. and it's not an easy choice. you have a lot of folks who -- who are, you know, good, decent people, who are campaigning, by in large as conservatives, saying much of the same things. i know that. and put out plans and ideas hopefully that will resonate not just with you here but for the american people. that's a good thing. you have the job of having to differentiate, having to figure out who's the real deal?

who's who we really need? who's what's best for america. the last time we had a watershed election like this was 1980. we had a president who was destroying the economy, destroying american credibility around the world, who was embarrassing america with the sectless policy towards, what was that country, iran, as they held hostages and we seem completely incapacitated to do anything. america was seen as weak. america was seen as not believing in itself or its people again. we needed government to do things. as a result, government -- business struggled. inflation went up. ladies and gentlemen, we're at that moment again. here in 2012. and new hampshire has to make a decision like you did in 2012. the decision is going to be this --

do you want someone who's going to go, vote for me, i can win. vote for me, i appeal to voters who we need to win. you know, moderates and the like. or do we need someone who says, america stands for something? here's my vision of this country. here's what i want to take, america, in a way that's consistent with the values that i have reflected throughout my career and passionately believe in its core convictions. i have a record to back it up and i have a personal life story that will back it up. those are the choices. you had them in 1980. george h.w. bush and ronald reagan. the people of iowa voted first. you know the rural conservative evangelical time types that are out of the main stream of american politics, at least

that's what i hear from the national press, they voted for george h.w. bush. and new hampshire voted reagan. the group of people they say are not that conservative here in new hampshire. they voted for reagan. did they vote for reagan because they necessarily agreed with all of his conservative policies? no. they voted for reagan because they knew he believed in all of the conservative policies and that they could trust him when he went to washington, d.c. to stand up and fight for the things that our country needed at a critical time in our country's history. that's what i ask the people of new hampshire to do on tuesday. stand up and do what america needs to have done. we all know it's not going be easy. i'm getting hammered. yesterday i did a couple of town hall meetings. and i went into detail about social security and medicare and how it's changing and oh, they're having a field day.

santorum proposing reductions in social security. when i finished, they didn't tell you this. when i finished discussing, aha social security. get prepared. and at the end of that discussion, i posed alternatives to them. and they said how many people would disagree with the alternative. not a single hand went up. not a single hand. yet, the press takes that and says santorum is trying to cut something. not a single hand in the room disagreed after we laid out the problem that this was in an appropriate way to at least begin. it doesn't solve the whole thing, at least to begin to solve the problem. that's what you have to overcome when you have a candidacy that's about ideas,

he looked in the camera. he said, call your member of congress. if you don't, you're a senior, you're not going to get your social security checks you. ear not going to get your medicare benefit. you are not going to get your paycheck. is that leadership? leadership is having the ability to go out and talk to the american public. and the american public like the

people of new hampshire do every day. which is par participating democracy. know what the truth is. lay out the situation and lead by educating and getting people to follow because they agree with you, not because you're intimidating them, not because you're threatening them. this is the bully, the power that comes and the bully that develops when you have a lot of power. we don't need any bullies. we need people who believe in you who want to work with you together to solve those problems. i look forward to your questions. yes, ma'am? >> will there be a place for newt gingrich? >> will i have a place for newt gingrich? i said before, there's a place for everybody on the stage tonight. there are good and dedicated people who care deeply about this country and can bring a lot

of energy and talent and ideas to the game. and absolutely. we would have a place for newt. >> yes, sir. >> alleviate some of the social security issues as to -- [ inaudible question ] >> talked about a whole variety of things. won't do the 45 minutes for the sake of everybody here. but i laid out what the problems are in social security. we had a huge multi-trillion dollar unfunded liability. we don't have enough money coming in to pay benefits right now. there's not enough money to come in to pay the benefits. so people say, well, we paid into it. we deserve it. yes, that's right. you did. but we don't have enough money coming in to pay the benefits. so we have to solve the problem. three ways to solve it. right? increase taxes, you can reduce benefits, or you can go out and borrow more money. how many people think we should

pay for this by going out and borrowing more money right now? okay, so far, i haven't found anybody who believes you'll be paying the interest on that for a long time, my man. i don't find very many people, you find one. but the consensus in america, that's not the way -- that's not the responsible thing to do. we have a $1.2 trillion deficit and the way to fix social security is not to make it a $1.5 trillion deficit. we're going be paying for that. every time you spend money, it's an increase in taxes somewhere. you're going to have to pay the interest. you have to have taxes to pay the interest. every brothered dollar is an eventually increase in taxes. understand that. let's look at it. well, how do we solve the problem? and i laid out some facts. and i just laid out some facts and let you decide how best to handle this problem. and that's what i want to do. i have suggestions, but to me,

this is an important program to millions, i would say almost to all americans. to try to play politics -- it happens on every election. every election, people attack social security. i'm trying to save zillions. you can't save it unless you're talking about it. unless you build consensus. it's too important a program. we're not going to fix anything. we're not going change anything on social security unless we have the broad consensus of the american people and you can't get that unless you're honest and talk to them about the problem. let me talk to you and lay out what social security was and is. the character of the program has changed because america has changed. 1937, social security went to place. life expectancy in america was 61. they set the retirement age at 65. if you were on social security in '37, you were by in large

very old and in most cases incapable of working. if you look at who in 1937 by age group was -- had the wealth in this country, it wasn't people over the age of 65. people over the age of 65 were one of the poorest group of people in america. that's the reason -- one of the reasons social security was passed, because people were not able to work. there were no pensions. no retirement savings, we had a depression. it wiped out the markets. we had people who were destitutes and families had support them, which they did. but if you didn't have family, what could you do. that's why social security was put in place as a safety net. they put a benefit in place for it. let's move to today. what's average life expectancy in america today? it's -- it's 78, depends on male or female? for women, it's over 80.

when do most seniors start to -- start to collect social security benefits? anybody know? 62. 62. 70% of seniors start collecting benefits at 62. do you know what the average life expectancy is for someone who's 62? 23 years. so we have people taking social security benefits for 23 years. does anybody believe that's what the social security system was set up to do? let me ask you this other question -- are people who are 62 years of age today, other than those who are injured and disabled, are 62-year-olds in america incapable of working by in large in america? >> no. >> no, i mean -- heck, we've got a guy running for president who's 76. i think is everybody else running at this point over the age of 62. if you're frunger president,

people think you're not mature enough if you're not 62 to run for president in some cases. so 62 is not old. that's the vast, vast majority of people at 62 can work. yet, they're working and receiving social security benefits. is that what the program was there to do? when you're running a $1.2 trillion deficit, when you don't have enough money coming in to the system to pay for benefits? so i understand people say, i get frightened when people talk about changing social security. remember, we're not going change social security benefits for people on social security. we're going change it going forward. why? because that's where the problem is. and so we're not moving the retirement age for anybody. it is moving, going up to 67. i tell you, there was the smart guy. there was the smart guy. who changed the retirement age from 65 to 67. raise your hand if you know? three people know. how smart a politician was this guy? right? that nobody blames the retirement age going up on the person who put it through.

ronald reagan. ronald reagan moved the retirement age up. why is it that nobody knows it? because he waited 20 years to do it so everybody forgot. and everybody who was effective was, you know, 45 or younger. and they didn't care. case in point. so, the easier way politicians have fixed social security is to wait 20 years to do it. we don't have 20 years to wait. we have to have this discussion. there's all sorts of things you can do, if you look at who in america today, for example, what age group in america has the wealthiest age group. has the the most wealth and assets? people over the age of 65, by far. so, here we have a situation where people are living 23 years on average on social security, instead of dying before they got social security, and we're transferring benefits through younger workers who are one of

the lowest income people in america, lowest wealth 5i cumulation to higher wealth accumulation. is this a system that you would call a safety net system? taxiing those who don't have wealth to redistribute money to those who do? and so i had this conversation. and i said to folks, what sort of things do you think we should do. what is the press report? santorum wants to cut social security benefits. now you know why the candidates don't talk about this, right? because you here who listen to the message say, you know what, this guy makes a lot of sense. i'm not -- let's talk about how we're going to fix this. but he's heading in the right direction. to the folks who don't want to fix it, but who want to use it as a political issue to do what they've been doing throughout the last three years in this country, which is to pick one group against the other, scare the living daylights out of seniors, that's what this is all

about. why? power. what did i just do here? i gave you the power. i gave you the power. right? i gave you the information. [ applause ] i did what you do here in new hampshire. i gave you the information to start making the decisions to participate in this discussion. instead of being a pawn in a power play. now, we can go through a lot of different ideas. i think we have to look at social security benefits, for higher income seniors. that's one of the ways we need to do it. we need to work going forward as the retirement age continues to go up to 67 in ten or so years, that we need to keep going. why? because people are going to continue to get older -- live longer and longer. and younger people can't afford that burden. they can't. when -- in 1950, when people

started -- when seniors today were working and starting to play benefits, they -- 15 workers, 16 workers for every one retiree. but it was a 2% payroll tax. well, now, there's less than three workers for every retiree. it's a 12.4% payroll tax. and it's going go to two, a little over two in a few years. understand this is a serious burden on younger workers. at a time when they have to compete with the rest of the world for labor. and the biggest cost that businesses have on labor, other than the salary itself? it's the payroll tax. so understand, why do you think obama went out and tried to cut the payroll tax? yes, to give a tax break, but he thinks it will create jobs. why? it's the biggest tax that employers pay on labor. they want to make labor more competitive. understand, there are -- this is

a complex issue. i get it. but unless we -- we will not solve this problem unless we bring you all together on this. and that takes leadership and courage not being a bully. plautz plautz. >> i'm a political tourist i found a couple of days ago. >> how many political tourists are there in the room here? whoa, how about that? >> so i saw a television ad last night where a very fearfully voiced commercial for mitt romney said that mitt romney is out to save the soul of america. and i view you as the most socially conservative and socially uncertain candidate. so i wanted to ask you if you feel that you represent the soul

of america? and do you believe it's a gay american's soul that needs saving the most? >> i'm not in to the salvation business. i have somebody else i rely upon for that. [ applause ] anybody elsz, yeah, in the back. >> do you believe in the constitution, you carry it in your pocket. you -- [ inaudible question ] [ applause ] >> i'll ask you a question back. what does the first amendment say with respect to religion? >> it says that -- it says that church should be completely -- >> no, it doesn't. >> no. this is good stuff.

okay. isn't this great? this is what america is all about here. hold up. hold on. i get this all the time. so i'm going to have you look it up while i'm talking. i can recite it. you won't believe me unless i read it out of the text. this happens all the time. this happens all the time. i used to meet with young people all the time when i was in the united states senate. and we'd get involved in discussions. we get involved in discussions. and, you know, young people -- you get the questions about faith -- that's important to kids. that i -- they're trying to figure it out. what words are in the constitution, what words are in the constitution? quote -- the separation of church and state -- quote, or congress will make no law respecting an establishment or religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. >> amen! [ applause ] >> which is in the constitution.

i would say which is in the constitution, an overwhelmingly consistently they say a. why? why do they believe that? oh, that's what it should be. okay, fine. but that's not what they're learning is the truth. you see, we have an obligation not to impose our values on our children, do we? right? should the state be imposing values that are in fact not what is the collective values as determined by our constitution, we should be teaching the truth. what is the truth? the truth is, we believe, in the free exercise of religion. that means people should, and this was -- james -- james madison re -- [ phone ringing ] it's okay. you're probably not the one. no, he's not. okay? so he's -- all of these

foreigners coming in here? so -- so -- so we have the -- we have the free exercise of religion. what madison talked about, he called the first amendment the free exercise of religion, the perfect remedy. the perfect remedy. why? because it's -- as i said before, the constitution was meant really as a document to figure out how people who are very different, have different ideas, can live together in peace. that's ultimately what the constitution was there to do, was to how we live together. because if you look at all of the other countries around the world, there's all sorts of strife. i remember growing up, you may know, i grew up in a steel town, butler, pennsylvania. >> yea! >> someone is from butler, pennsylvania? wow. i grew up in a town where every neighborhood, when i was growing

up in the steel town was an ethnic neighborhood. you know? different ethnic communities, different churches. it was wonderful. but there was a serbian community and there was a corrosion community. and i -- i knew both serbians and croatians. friends worked together, played together, all that kind of stuff. it's not until i got involved in politics that i realized they hate each other over there. i didn't know that. i never would have known that living in a community where there werer is bes and croats who didn't have any animosity toward each other. what makes america special? we allow someone like this to say i believe this. we allow someone like me to stand up and say i believe this. i don't call you a bigot and you shouldn't call me one. because i have these beliefs. [ applause ] but, and just for the record,

this gentleman did not say that. but it's not like i haven't been called that before. so it's really important to understand that going up and promoting your values in the public square is exactly what this country needs. okay? and don't be afraid to stand up as this gentleman believes if church and state should be separated, go for it. but understand and respect people who disagree with that. okay. yeah. i'm going to do -- i'm going to do a little editing of the questions here. the editing will be only people who have a new hampshire driver's license. >> there you go. >> only people with a new hampshire driver's license because i sort of want to talk to them right now about what their concerns are. and i'm taking questions from other people first. >> manufacturing? >> okay, manufacturing. >> hol lils.

i won't to -- >> we all realize how many manufacturing jobs we have lost. what can you do to help us regain our -- our premier -- you know what i'm trying to ask, come on? >> i'm glad you asked me that question. the plan that i put forward is called the made in the usa economic plan. i'm different from any other candidate in this race as a republican. and frankly as a democrat. any other candidate who understands that, yes, we need to grow the economy. we need to grow the economy through the private sector. we need to relieve the regulatory and tax burden on the private sector, we need to create an atmosphere where the private sector can grow. we have that in this country. and we've seen the economy grow and we've seen it decline. but one area we've seen a constant decline with respect to the number of jobs being available in that area, and it's

manufacturing. when i was growing up, 21% of the workforce was involved in manufacturing, and there were a lot of folks living in towns like i grew up in who were working in those jobs, who were providing for themselves and the family and pillars of the community and shared the basic common values of this country. they wanted the opportunity to work hard so they could make a paycheck. they instilled those values into the next generation. well, half of those jobs or more are gone, we're down to 9% of the workforce involving in manufacturing. what kind of jobs are we talking about? jobs on average pay $20,000 more than the average job in america. serious loss of income potential for half of america roughly or more who don't have a college education. those who do work in manufacturing and some of the more skill set jobs that manufacturing requires. and yet, we don't have anybody

in this for the last 30 years who have successfully run for president, goes out and talks what about are we going to do about this? the answer is those jobs are gone and we have to have a knowledge-based economy. why are the jobs gone? well, they're sort of, well, that's the way -- we're better at producing this, we're better at producing that. the problem is, people get hurt and they're hurting and they're losing faith with the american dream. and they're also understanding the opportunity to rise in society, income mobility, is being more limited. there are countries in western europe, many of them, unfortunately, we are more able to rise through the rankles of income in western europe than you are now here in america. that is not a good thing. most americans don't know that objectively. but they feel it. they want to be in a country where they believe they can rise

if they work hard. they're doing what they're supposed to do. >> what are you going to do about it. >> i'm getting there. i'm laying out my case, man. so what i put forward is a plan that will take care of the problem. the problem is that it is more expensive to manufacture in america than it is in other countries around the world we have to compete with. talking about more expensive. not talking about labor costs. putting labor costs aside. we're 20% more expensive to do business as a manufacturer in this country to make a product than it is in the nine top trading partners on average. obviously, it's more in some, less than others. but on average, we're 20% more expensive. imagine what it is for some of the countries. it's a lot more expensive. so what do we want to do? what do we have to do? whose fault is it? it's not labor. management as we all know, look at the productivity gains we have.

it's enormous. what we're doing as far productivity in america is not seen in the world. it's not a management issue. it's a government issue. high taxes, regulation, high litigation costs, energy costs, all of which have something to do with the federal government policy. so i put forward a multi--point plan. i'll discuss a few of them with you. one, the corporate tax. the corporate tax is 35%, the highest in the world. the highest in the world. we eliminate it. if you're a manufacturer or processor, you're not going to pay any corporate taxes in america. now why do i do that? because it makes our manufacturer more competitive. and they won't move that job -- you say we'll lose money? no, we won't. we'll make money. jobs will come back to this country. going to grow the manufacturing base. when we do that, we'll employ more people at higher wages and they'll pay more taxes.

second, regulation. this administration has blown the lid off of high-cost regulations. high-cost regulations are regulations of the cost industry over $100 million a year. so what are those costs? what are the average number of regulations promulgated by previous administrations under that high-cost label, 60 per year under clinton and bush. this administration last year, 150, 2 1/2 times the number of crushing regulations to micromanage and drive business out of this country. you draw on top of that, look at what the president did with the national labor relations force, basically telling company where is they must locate facilities based on their relationship with the unions. i'm not anti-union. i am anti-government coming down on the side of forcing companies to do what the union tells them to do. [ applause ] that's the difference.

so i would repeal every single regulation that costed over $100 million and i'll replace it with something that's more accommodating so we can compete or i'll get rid of them completely. finally, there's several others. finally i talk about energy. energy policy that keeps our energy costs low. the administration last year, the end of last year, promulgated and passed the legislation that would result in the -- the epa regulation that will result in 60 coal power plants to be shut down. what's going to happen? they have a war on coal, fossil fuels. they don't want drilling, mining, burning anything. what's going to happen? well, i know there's a big issue in new hampshire called the northern pass. guess what happens if we're going to shut down 60 coal-fired power plants. where are you going to get that power from? so, yet -- [ inaudible ] i love the people who say solar and wind.

let me ask you a question -- this is a question. how much base power do all of the windmills and solar panels built in america, how much do they reduce the base load of the electric grid in merge? >> less than zero. >> zero. why zero? because base load means it has to always work. the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. and so you're not -- you're not doing anythinged to replace that base load you need. so if you walk in the door and turn your light on, the light goes on. this is a phony energy policy of this administration. he wants to get the 20% green energy. i thought he was going to do it by projects like selindria. he's going to do it by shutting down fossil fuel projects so the small amount becomes bigger of green energy. raise rates, reduce reliability,

drive manufacturing offshore. we better have a policy that says we will be a robust energy producer to make sure we will keep our jobs here in america. >> that's right. [ applause ] >> what would your -- [ p lega-- what would your lega be? >> legacy? wow? well, i mean -- ultimately my legacy will be that i left this country freer, stronger, and better and safer than what i walked in to office. [ applause ] >> what do you want to do with the youth and the future of america who doesn't know much about regulations involved. what are you going to do to ignite passion to become educated and a working class

america? >> what we're going to do is to energize young people to become better citizens. is that pretty much the sum of it or -- >> more active citizens. >> more active citizen ms. i think --. [ inaudible question ] >> i think the answer to that is in all -- when i was in -- when i was in office, i met with every young group that ever wanted to meet with me. if there was a group of young people that wanted to meet with me, i would meet with them. we would get a picture and sign every picture individually when i was in office. because i just wanted to send a message that -- and i said this at every one of our meetings. remember, you don't work for me, i work for you. that's how america works. but i do work for you. but you have a responsibility to be a good employer. and that is you have to monitor your employees' behavior. you have to get reports from them and understand what they're

doing. and you have to motivate them, voting for or against them or helping them in campaigns or anything else. the job of a citizen is one that's essential. our founders believe it's essential. they limited as you know initially the rights of citizenship from the standpoint of voting to a small group of people because they were concerned that all americans wouldn't take the responsibility seriously. wouldn't be educated enough to make an informed decision. over time, through laws passed and amendments passed to the constitution, that opened up. and more and more people, but with that freedom, to be a participant in thee welcome to recall process comes -- >> responsibility. >> responsibility. now, good leaders, hopefully, can inspire people to -- to pay attention more and to get

involved. but ultimately, your responsibility, your love of this country. your desire to provide for a country that you can be successful in and can lead one to the next generation is what has to motivate you. and i would say, in essence, don't look to someone else. look to yourself and what you want to do with your life and what kind of country you want to live in and participate in the process. [ applause ] are you a new hampshire person? she's from pennsylvania, she lives in new hampshire. >> 20 years. >> that counts. i don't know, i'm -- here i am approving what new hampshire standards are. i'm sorry ant that. the is 20 years okay? okay. 20 years is okay. [ inaudible ] >> thank you. >> i'm from butler, from pittsburgh, penn state -- your

father-in-law was one of the dearest friends to my family. >> my father-in-law was one of the local pediatricians. he was a -- he was an old-fashioned pediatrician who did house calls and is real 4ri an awonderful, wonderful man. >> wonderful when he came to my house many times. but i love that. so very different. here, a democrat. [ inaudible ] >> we forgive you. [ inaudible ] you want me and perhaps maybe others to change our beliefs, our values, our thoughts, and vote for you and the republican party. let me just finish. i respect that. that's what you should do. but i'm not quite sure how to do i9. i'm just dramatically involved in being pro choice which to me means pro life. you're not pro choice and you're pro life. we're both pro life, but we don't see it the same. we don't define it the same.

>> understood. >> how do you convince me to change. i know your wife was very involved in a different world years ago in pittsburgh the leading women's health expert and the abortion. and i respect that. but she changed. why should i? why should anybody change? or should they? >> this is great. thank you so much. that was a lovely way of presenting that. let me just say, what i try to do is go out and tell you what i believe and why i believe it. and then i sort of leave it out there and say, you know, hopefully i've convinced you based on how i came to this. i came to this -- i told this story many times about being pro life. what i decided to run for the congress, i was an agnostic on the abortion issue. i was 28, 29 -- excuse me,

30-year-old guy who was -- never really thought -- wasn't married at the time. hasn't thought about abortion as an issue that much. i mean, i sort of had been an agnostic. it was not an issue that i cared much about. but when i thought about running for office, i knew this was an issue people are going to care about. i met with your pediatrician, my father-in-law. he wasn't my father-in-law at the time, he was my future father-in-law. he sat down and walked me through it. first from the standpoint of a scientist. and he described to me the process very -- you know, detailed process of how human life begins. and at the moment of conception, there is a unique individual, someone with the unique dna who is alive, therefore, human and alive, a human life. and so there is no question that at the time of the moment of conception, not a belief that that's a human being, it is, in

fact, a human being. the question is, from a scientific point of view, there really isn't an argument as to whether that's human life. it is. the question is -- the question is if that human life is a life that should be protected under the constitution. that 's the debate. and at what point in time does that human being obtain rights that protect its life, to protect it from having its life taken? that's the issue here. people can disagree. they say, well, because that human life is at a developmental stage or because that human life is inside the body of somebody else. that person doesn't have anything. i would make an argument that that is the case. that that -- someone because they are positioned a certain

way, and because there's a certain developmental stage, has less rights than everybody else. i don't think that's the right argument. i think the expansive argument should be the right one, which is to respect the dignity of all human life. the constitution as far as i see, a person isn't treated differently. it's a defined person in constitution. we're supposed to know it. is a human life a person. if you answer the question yes, then that person, it's protected under the constitution of our country. it has rights under the constitution that we're fighting a battle in the nbaa, the bill whether we can detain someone here -- a citizen here without the right of a hearing. here you have a situation where you can take someone's life, not detain them, but take someone's

life. if you believe all human life are people, a person, you have a moral imperative to stand up for -- for that belief. and in that respect, it's not a fact. you can say, well, a person is a defined term that you can probably define a lot of different ways. i would make the argument that the most welcoming and open way, one that i assume the founders understood and one that i would assume that we as a nation would embrace is we want an expansive definition of free people, we want to include everybody. but it's another point of view to say, no, we're not going to include all people. this is the problem i have with that. obviously, i believe all human life should be considered people. then if we say, well, here are the things that don't make this person make this human being a person. maybe they -- maybe they don't have brain wave or maybe they

don't have -- i mean, you can do all sorts of things to say that doesn't make them a person. the problem with that is, you go to people later in life, right? who may be on -- depending on something else to be alife. there are a lot of people in this country who are dependent on something to be alive i'm not sure we should say they're not persons. but my feeling is a concern of mine that is once you say that something is a human being is less -- is not a person, then you open up a situation where it's now five people on a supreme court to decide who lives and who dies. and who has rights and who doesn't. i take the -- i take the approach of being expansive. it's not anti-anything. it really isn't. i just see a fact and i see a xigsal division and i can't

reconcile why we should differentiate. i understand those who do. you have to understand why i do. it's not because i'm against anything. >> i respect that. i really do. [ applause ] because i'm very pro life -- i'm a professional. i'm a psychologist. i work with children. i'm pro life. look at us here. all of us here are pro life. i'm pro choice. and that's the difference. i want to respect you and i do. i just would like for you to respect my choice. >> i do -- but here's the -- it goes back to the question we were talking about before, which is you have had a strong opinion on what you believe is a person and protected by the constitution. as do i. now, the fact that you disagree with me, i wouldn't assume that you don't respect my opinion and the fact i disagree with you, you shouldn't assume that i don't respect your opinion. you have every right to come in to the public square and make your case. make your case to the people.

i have every right, and i would argue both of us have an obligation if we feel passionately about it to come to the public square and make the decision, here's the problem. that's not how it works? why? because we have five people, actually six, i guess it was, maybe seven, i can't remember roe versus wade, seven -- seven justices on a supreme court, seven people decide that decision. >> nine -- >> nine -- >> seven out of nine. okay? the 7-2 decision was rover cisse wade. there were people, also 7-2. we had seven people decide what -- who between the two of us was right. let me assure you that's not a perfect remedy. that's not what madison was thinking about. that's not how our country should operate. we should have this issue brought before the american people, and have a collective judgment as to what is the right thing to do. am i saying i'll win?

i have no idea. but to me, that's the right way to do it in america. and what we have -- this gets to a larger problem of judicial tyranny, of judicial tyranny. of all of you robbing you of your right have this debate in the public square and decide collectively what we believe in. these are deeply -- these are really important issues. why would you leave it to seven people to make this decision. who are unaccountable to anybody. this doesn't make any sense from the standpoint of what we all -- live free or die? is that freedom? to have seven people decide whether you can live or die? that's not freedom. i would make the argument that a repeal of roe versus wade, by the way, would not legalize abortion but put it in an arena where the american public could make this decision as where i believe it belongs.

one more. i said i'd give this young man an opportunity to do so. >> america was created on the assumption of all born equal. if you're born straight, you can get married. if you're born gay, you can't get married. you can't have children in a traditional sense. you can adopt a perfect family. how do you justify the not allowing people who are homosexual to get married? >> i'll answer that question repeatedly. i'll answer it this way. i believe that marriage is a privilege. it is not a right. it's not anybody or anything can get married. it's a privilege given to society. there are certain benefits that come from it. society has a right to collectively decide what they believe marriage is. historically, as we know, for

many, many years, and throughout centuries and millennia, marriage is defined between a man and a woman for a reason, that women and men come together for the purposes of bonding together to form a family to have children and to rear those children, which is what their birthright is. and every child has a right, i believe this. every child has a right to know its mom and dad and to be raised by its mom and dad. that's what's a right. now, we shouldn't have -- that doesn't mean that every child gets that right. obviously, there are lots of situations where children don't get that. and it's unfortunate. but we don't see that as necessarily a good thing. we see it as a good thing for the mothers and the fathers to raise their own children as a positive thing and as a result, we give special status to that relationship. because we know how intrinsically important it is for society to have these relationships. there are a lot of other important relationships in

society. friendships, loving relationships between relatives and even friends. but you know what? those relationships are not given this privileged status because while they're important, and they should be valued and honored, they are not -- due not provide the intrinsic good for the benefit and the future of society that marriage does and that's why we grant it a special privilege. [ applause ] .

>> thank you and god bless you.

>> good to see you, rick. >> thank you. >> it was a pleasure, rick. good job. >> thank you very much.

>> if you want to see the candidates "road to the white house" coverage takes you on the

campaign trail. >> i'm pleased that we have the enthusiasm that we have. >> go to town halls, campaign rallies and "meet and greets." >> thank you for coming. it was enjoyable. >> it is a pleasure to have a ear. >> are you planning on taxing big companies for shipping work

overseas? >> i want a tax code that clears out the loopholes. >> watch new hampshire coverage on c-span and c-span org. >> next we have coverage from new hampshire continuing with a mitt romney campaign rally in derry. then newt gingrich in worlboro. wolfeboro.-- worl >> now mitt romney holds a town hall with derry, new hampshire.

new hampshire has the first in the nation presidential primary on tuesday.

>> good morning, derry. how are you doing today? [cheers and applause] >> it is wonderful to be with you here at pinkerton. i have the privilege of representing you in the senate. why are we here this morning? we are here because we are worried about america and the of the american dream. that is why i'm here. that is why i ran to represent you in the united states senate, because i love our country and i love my two children. 4 years old, 7 years old. and i'm really worried right now about the future of our great count country. but i am so encouraged because i'm here today with mitt romney.

[cheers and applause] >> we have accumulated $15 trillion of debt and under this president we have accumulated $5 trillion of that debt. we have lost 1.7 million jobs in this country. gentlemen, we cannot afford another four years of barack obama. so on tuesday you have an opportunity here in the granite state, the live free or die state, to nominate someone for president of the united states of america who is a strong conservative leader, someone who

has private sector experience who actually knows how the economy works and how to get america working again. that person is mitt romney. you also have an opportunity to nominate someone in mitt romney who knows that we need to protect america, who will listen to his military commanders when he serves as commander in chief instead of his polsters or political advisors to make sure we protect the greatest country on earth. that will be mitt romney. he knows that we need to protect america. and you think about that $15 trillion in debt. mitt romney, hands down, has the private sector experience of balancing budgets, the experience as the governor of massachusetts where he came in,

where he had a deficit and turned it around and made it a surplus. he knows how to balance budgets unlike the current occupant of the white house and we need his experience in washington right now. the 'm asking you, please, future of america is at stake, the future of the american dream. the land of opportunity, the opportunities we want for my children, for your children in this great country. that is what is at stake in this election and you have the power on tuesday to nominate someone who will turn our country around, who will preserve the american dream. that is mitt romney. i ask you to get out on tuesday to vote for mitt. please talk to your friends and family. don't sit on the sidelines. this is too important for the sake of america. one of the things we have seen

happening in this campaign is the support that mitt and anne romney have been getting around this country. we are so privileged today, when you think of the conservative leaders that are leading our country forward, to have a wonderful, wonderful conservative leader here today, the governor of south carolina nikki haley, a fiscal conservative, someone who is a pro family, the mother of two children herself. she's proven as the governor of south carolina you can balance a budget, you can cut taxes, you can govern to make sure that you preserve the american people. she's supporting mitt romney as are so many conservative leaders across this country. it is my honor today to

introduce the great governor from south carolina, nikki haley and to welcome her to the granite state. >> thank you so much. thank you so much. good morning! >> organgood morning. >> i'm so excited because we have just had a blast in new hampshire, we really have. but what i found out is the people here are the same as the people in south carolina, the same as everyone across this country. what do we want? we want elected officials to remember who it is they work for. they work for the people, not the other way around. we want elected officials -- absolutely. we want elected officials to remember the value of a dollar and how they spend that money matters and it is not their money they are spending, it is the people's money and they have to be responsible with it.

so why is a conservative governor of south carolina to come to new hampshire to talk to you? because in my first year in office i knew we were going to have to deal with unemployment. i knew we were going to have to deal with the budget in balancing it and make priorities in cuts. what i did not know was that the hardest part of my job would be the federal government. they get in my way every time. the number one person that keeps me from doing my job is president obama. let me give you one example of how we have had to handle that in south carolina. we have this great company called boeing in the state of carolina. boeing came and created 1,000 jobs in south carolina at a time that we really needed them. at the same time they created those 1,000 jobs, they expanded

their workforce in washington state by 2,000 jobs. not one person was hurt, not one. and president obama and the national hraelabor relations b in and said boeing couldn't do that and we fought for the last year and a half saying we are a right to work state, we are a strong right to work state and we have the ability and should be able to have those 1,000 jobs. we fought it. we talked a lot of smack. and in the end we won, they brought down their lawsuit. the second thing we have said, and we know this is not just campaign talking points. no state can afford obama care. will go bankrupt if away try to pay for obama care.

what we have continued to see from the federal government are continuous mandates. when i talk to governor romney day one we will push to repeal obama care from this country. we passed legal immigration reform and department of justice said we could not do that. in south carolina we passed a bill that said if you have to show picture i.d. to buy sued federal and you have to show picture i.d. to get on a plane, you should have to show picture i.d. to vote. the department justice said you can't do that. they are fighting us on that. if you judge me based on my this year i have been sued by the unions, sued by the department of justice, we are

dealing with the aclu and last week jesse jackson was talking smack. and you know who is helping them? every single one of them is being helped by president obama. so, this is why i know that this in he right partner to have the white house if i'm going to be governor of south carolina. let me tell you why this matters. the main issues that we all care about -- jobs, the economy, spending -- we've got to get it under control. what do you do? first thing is we know we don't want anybody that has anything to do with washington. it is chaos. we can't have it. the second thing we know is, it is not what you say, it is what you do. he has done it. he had 25 years in the private sector and he fixed broken companies. our country is broken.

when he took a failed olympics, he made it a source of pride. we need that pride again with this failing economy. when he went into massachusetts he cut taxes 19 times, balanced his budget with an 85% legislature. we could use that in washington right now. [applause] >> and michael and i are part of a strong military family and we need a president that will strengthen and back our military, not weaken them and apologize for it. [applause] >> so, get excited, new hampshire, because this is what i mean. we don't just need a win in new hampshire. we need a landslide in new hampshire. and let me tell you why we need the landslide. because guess where he is going next.

he is going to south carolina. mitt romney is going to win south carolina, by the way. so, let's make it a little bit easier for him and go tell 10 to get out and vote. all eyes are on new hampshire. they are all watching you. and they are watching you to see how strong of a support you are going to send him to south carolina with. you take care of him in new hampshire, i will take care of him in south carolina and let him take care of us when he gets to the white house. god bless you and thank you very much. >> thank you. you stay here. don't leave. this is so much fun, you can't imagine how much fund r f-- fun it is to be here with these leaders.ive you are kind to be here this morning. saturday morning, thank you. you are the best. you. fresh from that landslide in

io iowa, can we double that? instead of an eight-vote margin maybe 16. get too confident with those poll numbers. i have watched them and it changes quickly. i need to make sure you get your friends to go out and vote and you vote as well. next door it massachusetts there was a time when -- my goodness, we have a contingent. you have a border security problem here apparently. we had a senate president named billy bulger. do you remember that name? billy, i guess, was being investigated. he used the joke that the f.b.i. came to him and said they had counted in the triple decker, you know, the triple apartment homes, he said the triple decker across the street from his home had voted 257 times for him in the last election and how could

he explain that. he said easy, the top floor was still empty. so make sure you vote and get friends to vote. i really want to have a great showing from new hampshire. this for me, by the way, is family. i mean your family but i've got family here, too. my sweetheart, anne, come on up here. so everybody can see anne. >> you never know what is going to happen when he gives me the microphone. i see friends here. john sununu is down there. governor. i actually came in and saw two of my brothers are here. wave. that was fabulous. we feel energized by being in this state. we love this state. we have a summer home here and we know how beautiful this state is and we want to keep it a secret but it might not be if he

is the next president of the united states so i apologize for that. it is an important election, we are thrilled to be here and can we bring up -- come on, guys. come up. my son. joe, thomas, jennifer. johnny. hi, johnny. sontag. joseph, thomas and jennifer. thank you for coming and we are thrilled to hear from them. >> that is our oldest son, one of five. his daughter would be here. she is 16. she slept in. us.s is family for we care deeply about the country. anne mentioned her to brothers are here. no applause necessary. ne is a doctor in california,

the other does trade out of utah with the far east, travels all over the word. i was thinking about their dad and my wife's dad. that is the same person by the way. he was born in wales. his father was a coal miner. he was injured in an accident in the coal mine and decided to leave the country he knew and come to america. came here for the reason all of our an ses source came -- ancestors came. for opportunity and they got here and had -- how many kids? four? they knew education was important and they knew college was expensive around on the money they were making they couldn't afford college so they

came together as a family and pooled their income and give all of their money to one of them who could get into college. they would all sacrifice for that one to get a degree and that happened to be anne's dad. he went to general motors institute of technology. got his degree, started an engineering firm and hired his brothers and sister's husband. it is the story of america where people come here seeking opportunity and find it and achieve their dreams. i love there country. i love what it is. it is at the score and essence of this country. what frightens me today we have a president who i don't think understand the nature of america and power of opportunity and freedom. i want to bring these things back to america so we have a brighter future nor our kids and their kids. >> at this academy four years

ago i think almost four years ago to the day candidate barack obama was here speaking. and he said he was going to bring big things to america. well, he did, but they came with big price tags. and they didn't work out so well. big things. bad things. expensive things. he brought obama care. we don't want obama care. we didn't need it and we don't want it. he brought massive deficits. he was critical of the president saying that president bush had large deficits. he has put in place deficits three times as large. if you look at the public debt, which has been put on the nation's balance sheet he will by the end of his first term and his only term by the way -- [cheers and applause] >> he will have put in as much debt as all of the prior presidents combined. a big thing, bad thing, expensive thing. and some of his legislation like

do dodd-frank, 2,300 pages and the big banks smile because they have the lawyers that deal with the regulations. it is the community banks that give loans to small businesses who are being crushed by the legislation. big things, bad things, expense suffer things. then he brings a new idea yesterday or the day before to our national security. he says that after the many years following f.d.r. where we will a single strategy for our national defense and that is to have a military strong enough to fight two wars at the same time, hopefully never have to do it but have the capacity so we have national security and strength he changes it and says he is to shrink the military. we will no longer have the capacity to fight two wars at one time. i want a military that is superior to anyone else by a which had margin, not because -- yes.

[applause] >> not just so that we can be successful in conflict but so we can avoid conflict. a military that is extraordinarily strong, superior to others, keeps others from doing dangerous things that would threaten us. i want to take america's strength and security. i don't want president obama's big bad things, expensive things, let's protect america with a strong military. >> another big thing. how about borrowing $787 billion in a stimulus bill that was promised to keep unemployment below 8%? how did that work out? we have not seen unemployment below 8% since. it has been 35 straight months above 8%. and that is nothing to write

home about. that is an exceptionally high level of unemployment. that is millions of americans out of work unable to find jobs. this president has failed on almost i have dimension. i remember what he said on "the today show" shortly after being inaugurated. he said if i can't get this economy turned around in three years i will be looking at a wuo one-term proposition. we are here to collect. we are taking it back. [applause] >> and i'm asked how i will get the economy going again. what things i will do to get people back to work. to make america the most attractive place in the world for inventors, pioneers, for investors. for job creators. there are lots of ways of doing that. getting regulations to work for industry. getting our tax rates competitive. getting america energy secure by using our oil, gas, coal and

nuclear. i want to open up new markets for american goods and make sure when people cheat and steal or technology that we clamp down on them. no more letting china run all over us and pretends that it is not happening. people say how can we balance the budget. even in massachusetts we balance the budget every year. we have some people that want to make themselves heard. hi, guys. how are you doing? [group chanting]

>> we are lucky to live in a country where people can investigate their views. i love the freedom of this great country. although i do prefer we do it with respect and civility. i will tell you how i will balance the budget. we did that in massachusetts. i see some massachusetts legislators right here this. is a total contingent of republican legislators. we balanced the budget every year republicans and democrats coming together and working together. we went through the budget and listed all of the programs and decided which ones we had to have and which ones were just nice to have. and some of those that were just nice to have we either eliminated or cut back on. i will take the federal budget and look at all the programs and i will ask this question. is this program so essential worth borrowing money

from china to pay for it. if it doesn't pass that test i will get rid of it and obama care is the first one on that list. as important as jobs are and the need to get our economy going again, as important as it is to rein in the scale of the federal government and return to the principles of the constitution, i hope we recognize this election is about something even more defining in some respects, and that is the direction of this country and what kind of america we are going to have. this is an election about the soul of america. are we going to remain true to the prims that the nation -- principles that the nation was founded upon? in a merit society people are able to achieve great rewards based upon their education and

willingness to work hard and willingness to tack risks, their dreams, maybe some good luck and their success lifts not only themselves but lifts the people they employ and lifts the whole nation. america is prosperous in part because of the merit society. when the founders crafted the country and wrote the declaration of independence they said the creator endowed us with certain rights among them life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. they recognized that in this left-hand, unlike others -- in land we would be free to pursue our happiness. this would be a merit society. it has driven us to be the most prosperous nation on earth. some people like to protest looking for some other model. they don't like free enterprise and capitalism. i understand it is not perfect but it is better than anything else that has ever been tried.

so, there are those that say let's not go down that path. let's take a course to be a european style welfare society where the role of government is to take from some and give to others. it sounds good, creates greater equality but creates poverty. look at the history of the world. even in europe which is not as free enterprise oriented as we are the income per person on average in europe is 50% less than in this country. ours is 50% greater. it is an amazing thing the power of what was crafted in this country. i do not want america to follow the path of europe. i want to keep america true to the principles that made america hope of the earth. now, i have some favorite national hymns and one i have been speaking about the last few

days is "america the beautiful." and you know the words of that, oh beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain. when i was in iowa i used to claim that corn qualified as an amber wave of grain. for purple mountains majesty. certainly the white mountains qualify. there is another verse i love. oh beautiful for heroes proved in liberating strife who more than self their country loved and mercy more than life. o we have any veterans or members of the armed forces here? would you raise your hands. thank you for your service. thank you. thank you, sir. you. thanks, ma'am. we are a patriotic nation. we love those who serve. there is another verse i hope we don't forget. oh beautiful for patriot dream

that sees beyond the years. the idea of the patriots and founders was not temporary. it was enduring. those who would change america, the president said fundamental ly transform america, going in the wrong direction. the right course is to bring back to the principles that made us who we are. our love of freedom, passion for the constitution, the patriotism we have for this land and conviction that this land should be a land of opportunity where people like anne's dad can come from wales, where a family can come together and sacrifice and put one family member to college and give them the opportunity to lift their family and others. this is the lands of opportunity. i love america. america true to those principles and restore those principles and get to us live within our spending so we stop borrowing the money, live within our total budget. i'm having a hard time getting

it out but i want to make sure we balance our budget and get americans working again. i want to make sure we are prosperous and we have the capacity militarily to stand up to our challenges around the world. we are the only people on earth who put our hand over our heart during the playing of the national anthem. to the is a tradition begun under f.d.r. in honor of the bloodshed by sons and daughters in far off places. i love america, we love america. i'm convinced if we've leaders who will tell the truth and who will live with integrity and who know how to lead, have had the experience of leadership and know how to lead, if they will draw on the patriotism of the american people we can overcome any challenge we have. i intend to be one of those leaders with your help on tuesday. thank you, guys. thank you. thanks so much. great to be with you. thank you.

♪

>> good to see you.

>> i know this guy. hi. thanks for your help today. how are you. thank you. >> how are you. thanks for being here. how are you this morning. i appreciate your being here. how are you? >> good. >> you got up early on a saturday morning. it is so nice of you. >> good luck, sir. >> thank you. i may need that. >> 4:30. >> 4:30? my goodness. i appreciate your help today.

>> how are you doing? appreciate your service. thank you. >> we are going all the way. >> thank you. thank you. >> thanks for running. >> thank you. nice to see you this morning. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. good to see you. red sox fan of course. hi there. >> would you sign that? >> there you go. hi, guys. how are you?

there you go. >> thanks, good to see you. hi, how are you. >> hi. >> good to see you. >> hi, how are you. good to see you. i appreciate your service.

how are you? good to see you this morning. how are you doing? good to see you. >> how are you. go get them. >> you have got energy. thanks for coming. >> thanks for coming. >> good to be here. hi, how are you? how are you doing? >> good morning. >> good morning, thanks for coming. >> good to be here. >> they have a lot of energy today. >> certainly do. it is exciting. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi, how are you doing?

>> thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> i appreciate the work you do. >> that is the best part of a campaign. thank you so much. good to see you. hi, how are you.

good to see you. >> thanks for coming. >> good to be at pinkerton. >> good to see you. >> hi, how are you? good to see you this morning. thanks for coming by. >> can we get a picture? >> sure, you bet. >> all right! >> thank you. glad to see you. appreciate your service. nice to see you. >> been a long time.

forever. thank you guys. good to see you. how are you? >> good, thank you. >> we love you, mitt. >> thank you. we have come a long way. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> you bet, you bet. thanks so much. good to see you.

>> how are you? nice to see you this morning. thanks for being here. good to see you. thank you, thank you. thanks so much. hey, guys. how are you? >> hi there. how are you doing? thanks. >> you bet. hi, how are you. good to see you. thanks for being here. hi, good to meet you. thanks for being here. hi, how are you? good to see you.

>> can we get a picture? >> sure, come on in here. thanks so much. good to be with you. so kind. you want me to sign that? you bet. >> thanks for being here. thank you. >> good to see you, neighbor.

how are you? do you go to school here? >> yes, i do. >> lucky you. do they charge you tuition? is it sort of semiprivate? hi, how are you. >> good luck. >> thanks so much. thank you. >> good luck. >> great to see you. >> that is my wife debby. >> hi. thank you. thanks, betty.

>> hi, how are you? thanks for everything. >> we are here. >> thank you. >> this is debbie. >> great to see you. >> great to see you. good luck with everything. with you mind doing a quick turnaround for my wife. she is right behind you.

>> sure. >> there we go. >> bob is a big fan. he will do whatever he can for you. >> i will do my best. >> good luck. >> thank you. hi there, buddy. good to see you. >> i like that sign. thanks, buddy. thank you. i appreciate your help. thank you. >> good luck. >> thanks. i know you are the phaman.

you did so well in massachusetts. >> hey, freddie. do you live here now? thanks for being here. hi, how are you? i appreciate your coming. do you go to school here? >> no. >> hi there. how are you doing? >> i'm good. >> good to see you here this morning. hi there, how are you? hi there, how are you?

>> thanks. good to see you. >> how are you? thanks so much for coming. >> good luck. >> thank you.

>> hi there. thank you for being here this morning. thank you. >> would you sign your autograph? >> yeah. >> we are voting for you. >> i will do my best. >> thank you, thank you for being here. >> will you work hard for ameri america?

>> there is the socialism of cuba and north korea. >> go win for us, mitt. >> give them hell, mitt. >> go win for us, mitt. go win for us. >> you are my man. >> i know what a hard worker you are. >> thank you.

>> right behind you.

there is a question. >> thanks, guys. thanks very much. >> how are you? mitt, thank you very much.

>> we know you are going to save america. >> thank you. >> they want to shake your hand. >> all right. >> hi there. good to see you guys. go to school here? >> yes. >> you do? wonderful. >> they wanted to meet you. >> good to see you guys.