♪ >> c-span's wrote to the white house political coverage leading up to the south carolina republican primary continues today with a town hall meeting for undecided voters in myrtle beach, south carolina. you can watch live coverage at 5:30 p.m. eastern here on c- span, c-span radio, and c- span.org. >> is easy to follow the presidential candidates through social media. follow what the candidates are posting in real time. read the latest from political reporters and what the viewers like you are same, as well as

access to video. >> today on c-span radio, supreme court oral arguments in the case of fox television verses fcc. you can listen to coverage starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio here in washington at 90.1 on x and satellite radio, and as well as training on c-span.org. >> republican presidential candidate mitt romney at a town hall meeting with veterans. senator john mccain and john bolton also joined in. opening remarks from south carolina governor niki haley. this is about one hour.

♪ i just came in from the overflow room. i am so proud to be back in our second home. we love to come here often. this is where michael is from. we get to come often.

we will start with the fact that i am very blessed to be married to a man who puts on a military uniform every day. michael haley, stand up and say hello. [applause] we have had an amazing time. the reason we have had an amazing time, there is a groundswell in south carolina that understands all eyes from around the country are on our great state. i could not be more proud. what we are seeing is a great debate about what we will do, how we will do it, and being smarter about it. what i am thrilled to say that we're backing the man that has a record. it is not wh he said, it is what he has done. he has a record for taking broken companies and fixing them. he has a record for taking a

failing olympics and making it a sense of pride for our country. going in as a governor of a liberal state, cutting taxes 19 times within 85% democratic legislature, and balancing their budget. couldn't we use that in washington right now? [applause] this is a man, when we are still in a primary with six candidates, all the democrats are only talking about him. what does that tell you? i think somebody is a little bit scared. this is a time where i think it is good. we have seen what it is like when we have gone to the extreme. we know what voting for a personality will get you. we are a proud military family. michael loves his country. i know that i and the kids

understand that he is going to be called and when he does, we all sacrifice. what we need and what i know governor romney will give us, he understands you strengthen military and you never apologize for america. [applause] you combine all of that with the fact that i asked him about health care and he said, we will appeal obamacare. [applause] we should use picture id to vote. the department of justice has called us on that, but the governor will stand by our side on that and allow us to have voter i.d. in this country. [applause] time and time again, we have heard president obama said that

he wants to see things made in america. we have some great boeing airplanes made in charleston, south carolina. [applause] he sure did not help us, but i will tell you that governor romney will stand by and never let them do that to our free market ever. we look forward to that. [applause] before i turn the microphone over to these great men, i want to remind you that we are conservatives. we are republicans. whether we are independent, whatever we are. whatakes this country great is that we value the free market. let's not let ourselves get involved in a debate and joined

the democrats when we start trashing the free-market and trashing private enterprise. i ask you to join me -- it is a dangerous hill to go down. we do not nt to go down that. thank you for making me proud. i told him that hilton head was a place they had to go. i know you will be a little bit busy this year, but how cool when it be if president romney came for the heritage next year? [applause] thank you very much. god bless you. [applause] >> thank you. [applause]

thank you so much. please. it is an honor to be here. and to be on this stage with these military veterans. their service is greatly appreciated by the entire nation. the chance to be with you. i appreciate the chance to be introduced by your governor. one of the great conservative leaders in our country. [applause] to be here with senator john mccain, a national hero. [applause] one of the conservative leaders in our country to stand up for american ideals, that is ambassador john bolton. [applause] with michael here, i thought i might describe my experience with the national guard in my state. the kind of patriotism that

exists. whether active duty or reservists or national guard, i've always been inspired by the passion of the people who serve this country. i happen to be in afghanistan and iraq, this was several years ago, about 2007. it was before the surge had been implemented successfully. it was early on. i went from se to base to see members of the national guard from my state, as well as active-duty personnel. as i go to various bases, they came to me -- ifou would like me to call your family, a slip of paper with your name and your number and i will call them when i get home. by the time i left, i had 63 pieces of paper in my pocket. this is going to take awhile. i got home on the day before

memorial day. on memorial day morning, before the kids get up and we play together, i will bang out three or four calls. i was a little nervous about the calls. it was before the surge had been devised. this was a time when people like harry reid were saying that we have lost in iraq. when our current vice president, then senator biden, said we would divide the country in three. i expected that i would be hearing them saying, why is my loved ones still there? what are we doing in iraq? i began making my calls. the second or third call, the person who answered the phone, said, governor romney, i thought that might be you calling. [laughter] they said, you made a uple of calls earlier this morning. the spouses e-mail and their

loved ones in iraq and afghanistan called to say that you were calling. they e-mailed their buddies and they e-mailed the spouses to say to you expect your call today? i made 63 calls on memorial day. [applause] it was an inspiration. in 63 calls, not one complaint. not one question about the decision of our commander-in- chief. not one. i would end the calls by saying these words, "on behalf of our country and on behalf of the commonwealth of massachusetts, i wanto express my appreciation to you for the sacrifice of your famy." they would either wait until i was finished or interrupt me and say, "it is an honor to be able to sacrifice for the greatest nation on earth." every time, i heard that messe. this is a patriotic people.

i have behind me members of the greatest generation, i imagine. [applause] do you have a secret weapon to win the war? he said, the best damn soldiers in the world. he is right. that was the greatest generation. those who serve today are the greatest members of this generation. their passion and their willingness to sacrifice for this country is an inspiration to the entire nation. we appreciate their service. i am disappointed that this administration has failed in so many ways. as they are coming home from iraq, as they come come from afghanistan, they find it hard to find a job. this president has not been able to create the jobs our economy needs. 35 straight month above 8%. 25 million people are out of

work. or stopped looking for work, or in part-time work. the present has failed the american people. our men and women in uniform are particularly hard hit by this failure in our economy. he was critical of president bush for putting together deficits. his deficits are three times as large or larger. he is on track in his first term -- his only term, by the way -- [applause] he is on track to put in place more debt on america than all the prior presidents combined. it is unthinkable. the veterans administration has not done the job it ought to have done. the backlog for veterans aims, benefits claims, is now twice as rge as under the prior administration. the number of veterans claims over 125 days is four tis as large as under the prior

administration. we need to do a better job to care for our veterans. our hospitals, our care -- [applause] we also need to make sur that our fighting men and women of the futureave the weapons systems to make sure they can be successful and be protected and can come home safe and secure. i am very disappointed. he signed up with a plan with congress to take out another $800 billion more. i do not think this is a time the justifies our reigning in the capacity of america's miliry. we have fewer ships in our navy than anytime since 1917.

our air force, it is older and smaller than anytime since its founding in 1947. rotation after rotation, they're planning on reducing our number of active-duty personnel. i know therere many that believe we can keep on shrinking the size of our military budget. i do not agree. i know there is waste there. there is waste in the military, that is for sure. but i want to find the waste and use it to make sure we rebuild the most modern military in the world. i want to make sure that we rebuild our air force. i want to make sure we have at least 100,000 additional active duty troops. i want to make sure we use the money to care for the veterans

in the way they deserve to be treated. [applause] the secretary of defense has said these cuts represented a doomsday scenario. that is a frightening thought. i do not think the world has become safer. we can shrink our military, if we do so, the world will somehow forget this and not be as hostile. i believe the best peace is a strong america, not a weak america. [applause] i am convinced that the best deterrent against war is to have a military so superior that no one would ever think of testing it. that is the right course for

america's military strategy. [applause] this is a campaign about two very different directions. in some respects, it is a campaign about the soul of america. when the founders of this country crafted our national documents -- the declaration of independence, the constitution -- they saw an america as an opportunity nation. the creator had endowed us with certain unalienable rights. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. we would be free to choose what we wanted in life. what we nted to be, where we wanted to live, where we want to build our businesses. what kind of health care we would have. that created an opportunity society, where people, based on their education, and hard work, their willingness to take risks, the dreams, these things and left certain individuals to become so successful, they employ many of us.

the success of some does not make the rest of us poorer. it helps the rest of us become better off. this is the nature of free enterprise and freedom and opportunity. [applause] we have a president who takes his inspiratn from the european style welfare state. it has a vision of an entitlement society rather than an opportunity society. an entitlement society, government takes from some to give to others. the only people who do well are the people who do the giving and taking. the government. that is not the right course for america. europe is not working in europe. it sure will not work here. [applause] i love our national hymns. i love this country.

when i was a boy, my mom took us around to the national parks. we had a rambler, remember those? [laughter] i knew what my parents were doing. they want us to fall in love with america. and i did. i am troubled as i watch the president and some in his party divide america. trying to pursue this european welfare state they seem to want to replace ambition with envy. they poison the verypirit of america with class warfare. i believe america will be strong as long as we're one nation under god. [applause]

my mom would sing various patriotic songs. american anthems. my favorite was "america the autiful." "purple mountain majesty across the fruited plains." when i was in iowa, i liked to pretend that corn qualified. [laughter] "o beautiful for patriot dream that sees beyond the years." the patriots, the founders, in devisi this country, this opportunity society, crafted something that was not temporary, but enduring.

the principles of america were the principles that would guide us for centuries. those who would take us in a different direction do not understand. it is those principles we must return. the president says he wants to fundamentally transform america. i do not want to transform americ i want to restore the principles that made america great. [applause] one more verse. "o beautiful for heroes proved in liberating strife, who more than self their country loved, and mercy more than life." we have one of those heroes today. senator john mccain. [applause] >> thank you very much. [applause] >> wasn't that a marvelous speech, my friends?

[applause] we have been together a long time. that is really one of the most powerful speeches i have seen hi or anyone else, give. thank you for that -- [applause] i have to follow it. it reminds me of an old-line i used to use all the time. i feel like zsa zsa gabor's fifth husband. i know what i'm supposed to do, i just do not know how to make it interesting. [laughter] i want to thank a woman of courage, a great leader of the state of south carolina. these things do take courage. she decided some time ago who

she felt was the best person to be president of the united states. among some very highly qualified individuals. thank you for your support and your leadership. [applause] [no audio] one of them turns to the other one says, the food was a lot better in here when you were governor. [laughter] in some states you cannot tell that joke. [laughter] is anyone from illinois? [laughter]

i would like to say, thank you for serving. can we thank all of our veterans? would you stand and say thank you for your service? [applause] these are the men and women who kept our nation through some dark times a. and our nation and the world stands in everlasting debt. myself, i was able to intercept a missile with my own airplane. [laughter] it was no mean feat. i have to tell you, when i graduated from the naval academy, i tried to get into the

marine corps. my parts were married. [laughter] i have told that joke a lot of times. lo and behold, i have a son who enlisted in the united states marine corps at age 18. he fought in iraq. he says, the marines are part of the navy department. the men's department. i did have a great opportunity of spending time with mitt romney and his family. they have a wonderful family. they are a family that americans can look up to. after i lost november of 2008, i slept lika baby.

sleep two hours, wake up and cry, two hours. [laughter] everybody says, "i voted for you. i will demand a recount." it is a tough fight. we did have a tough fight. as soon as that campaign was over, no one cpaigned harder for me than mitt romney. we spent time together with our families. i got to know and respect mitt. their five sons and 16 grandchildren. [applause] more importantly, mitt romney understands what this nation eds. thought he just gave you a strong articulation about our national security challenges.

my friends, mitt romney knows how to restore america's economy. we are hurting in south carolina. we are hurting in arizona. in my home state,a little less than half of the homes are underwater. worth less than their mortgage payments. 10% unemployment here in south carolina. for two years, this president had majorities in both houses of congress. what did he do? he dug us deeper in debt. we cannot stand that any more. we can talk about vision, theory. here is the best example. i am sure you know about

staples. staples was started by mitt romney and others with $5 million and a warehouse. compare that with the view of this administration and its president and solyndra. that did not start in a warehouse. they started in some beautiful glass palace with $500 million of youtax dollars. the differences, mitt romney believes business creates jobs. the free enterprise system. sometimes me of them fail. none of them ever failed in the soviet union, did they? some of them fail, but it is the greatest free enterprise system. it is the greatest job creator there is. this man was part of that. yes, there were some jobs lost, but it is what the free enterprise system is all about. jobs and businesses were created all over this country by mitt romney.

he knows how it is to get our economy back on track. less taxes, less regulation, less government intervention. give the american entrepreneur a chance. that is all it is. i just came from visiting with friends of mine in n york. i did the letterman show, for those of you who were up late last night. you know what they're saying? they said, give us some certainty. give us some certainty, that is what we nt. we do not know when the next resolution is coming down. the dodd-frank bill has hundreds of pages of regulations. mitt mney will get our ecomy back on track and get this countryack to where we all know it must be and can be and will be. the greatest nation on earth. [applause] can i just say a word?

i would like to tell you a quick story. i succeeded barry goldwater in the unit states senate. on election night, when i was elected, he said, if i wou have been elected president in 1964 and beaten lyndon johnson, you would never have spent all those years in a vietnamese prison camp. i said, you are right. it would he been a chinese prison camp. [laughter] he was not amused. [laughter] can i say to you that throughout the world, they believe we are in retreat. they believe we are leaving. we left iraq without a residual force. 4474 braveoungmericans

sacrificed their lives and thousands were wounded. losingthe war and we're the peace. in afghanistan, the president is pulling our troops out of iraq before we finish the part that needs to be done in the eastern part of afghanistan. we cannot let these brave young americans go with that kind of leadership. we need the kind of leadership that mitt romney has proven he is capable of and he will. i believe in america and its future. you believe in america and its future. it is time we gomitt romney as president of the united states of america. thank you very much. [applause] i have talked too long, and i apologize. mitt romney has made history.

he won in iowa, and he won in new hampshire. first time that anyone has ever done that. if we put south carolina into the win column, this campaign will be on its way to a very important victory. we take no votes for granted. this is going to be a tough competition. please get out the vote. call your friends. call your neighbors. make sure everyone you know votes. this area, these brave people who have served, these woerful people in hilton head and along the coast, are going to be very important. please remember the immortal words of the late mayor daley of chicago. he said,"vote early, and vote often." [laughter] [applause] and now john bolton.

>> thank you. thank you very much. [applause] thank you very much. my thanks to the governor for being such a kind stess in south carolina. this is my first rally for mitt romney. i am delighted to be here. it is always great to ben the same platform with john mccain, a man who stood by me during my confirmation difficulties a few years ago. somebody i have always looked up to, a real american hero. it makes us all proud to be americans. [applause] it just underlines, i think, the importance of electing a real president this november. i am proud to support mitt romney. like many voters, i wantedo make the right choice. i was looking for the person i thought most exemplified the

values of ronald reagan, the kind of person who could provide that leadership for us. i think it is mitt romney. i understand, as a foreign- policy national security guy, that the economy is the top issue. the president has taken three years and made it worse. he has made it an even more important issue, is that as possible. our national security and our economy are intimately related. you cannot have a strong nation defense without a strong economy. we cannot have a strong economy if we cannot protect america's interest and our friends and allies around the world. this president has done almost everhing possible to weaken the united states.

the irony is he is campaigning on the basis that he is a success as a foreign-policy president. this is amazing. navy seal team killed osama bin laden. that is his definition of success. 1969, when americans landed on the moon, it is like richard nixon taking credit for that. it happened to occur during his presidency. the fact of the matter is this president has been a failure across the board in foreign policy. it has jeopardized in the united states in critical ways. as john mccain said, he has pulled out of iraq and jeopardized the gains won. he is about to do the same in afghanistan. he has ignored the nuclear weapons threats posed by north korea. completely mishandled the nuclear weapons threats posed by iran, which is on the verge of getting nuclear weapons. he has not been only the most radical president in history domestically, he is the first president, republican or democrat, since franklin roosevelt, who does not get up

every morning thinking first about threats the united states faces. he just does not care about national security. he is much more interested in moving us towards a social democratic health-care system. a social democratic environment. you get the picture. that is what he wants to do. it is time we had a president who understood you cannot have freedom and prosperity in america unless we are prepared to defend ourselves around the world. not just on the traditional military front. look at the front that we face from north korea and iran. look at the threats we face from accidental nuclear launches from russia or china. what has this president done to defend us agnst these challenges? he has reduced our missile defense program.

he has taken something that ronald reagan nceived in the mid-1980's and thought to implement. president bush worked hard to move toward a national missile defense capability to protect the innocent american civilians in our country from nuclear attack. i was proud to be the negotiator who got us out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. it forbade us to build a national defense. it is hard to believe, but in the cold war, people like vice- president biden believed that missile defense was a bad thing. it might upset the soviet union. today, these people are in power. they do not believe in defending the american homeland from the spread. you can bet in places like moscow and beijing, they understand exactly what this administration is doing. pressing the reset button with russia, making concession after

concession, not being able to deal with the threat of a nuclear iran. ladies and gentlemen, we need a president who appreciates these threats. who is firm enough to deal with them and can take these measures to protect us herat home. i understand, the american people, when they look at a president from the national security point of vi, they are making a huge delegation of authority. they will not get into the specifics of the day-to-day o foreign policy. they are making a judgment on an old-fashioned word. they're making a judgment on character. they want a president who has judgment, steaness of purpose, leadership, will not falter in a crisis, and who does not believe the role of america in the world is to be a well- bred drman. [applause]

i believe our safety's sake, critical to our liberty at home, critical to our economic prosperity, the first duty of the sovereign is to protect the people against foreign attack. i think there is only one person in the race today that we can count on to do that for the united states of america. that is mitt romney. thank you very much. [applause] >> part of my additial duties is to recognize people who have questions or comments or insults. if you would just raise your hand. >> [inaudible]

i ha a question. where did you hide the teleprompters? [laughter] [applause] >> thank you. >> governor romney, i am for you, but i need to ask you a personal question. do you believe in the divine saving grace of jesus christ? >> yes, i do. [applause] i would note tt there are people in our nation that have different beliefs. there are people of the jewish faith and people of islamic faith. our president will be president of the people of all faiths. [applause]

our nation was founded on the principle of religious tolerance and liberty. we welcome people of other faiths. i happen to believe that jesus christ is the son of god, and my savior. i know that other people have different views. i respect those views. respect the fact that in this country, we welcome folks of different perspectives and faiths. i was very proud to live in a state like massachusetts, where our heritage was one of welcoming people of other faiths. we had some struggles with that our early years. the great majority of us have decided that this is something that does not determine who should be our president or vice president or governor or senator. we look at the character of the man or woman. thank you. [applause]

>> [inaudible] what are we going to do about the illegal immigrants? >> i will let the governor start off with that. >> i will tell you that to we passedllegal immigration reform in the state. that was absolutely -- [applause] we passed reformn this state. it was stronger than arizona. guess what. the department of justice stopped us. i asked the governor what he would do with our illegal immigration reform bill. >> i support it. [applause] if the federal government is failing in its duty to protect our borders, states have to take action to protect their

citizens. john mccain's comments in this are quite powerful. my solution is to have a fense, have enough border patrol agents to defend it, and crackdown on employers who hire people who are here legally. >> need a program in the agriculture sector. we need to keep these young people receiving an education in our country, high technical skills, we can have that kind of a program. i want to point out one of the other things you never hear about illegal immigration. there is a great danger that the drug cartels pose an actual threat to the nation of mexico. 40,000 people recently have been murdered in this terrible gruesome drug cartel behavior.

my state of arizona, there are guides on mountains that are guiding the drug runners as they go through the bordernto phoeniwhere drugs a distributed throughout the country. there is one other aspect that you do not hear about. there is now about the only way that someone can come across the border through paying these coyotes. they mistreat them, theyeep them in houses, the worst kind of conditions. they hold them for ransom. these are unspeakable cruelties that are comtted. where are the human rights activists on this issue? that is my question. every nation has the obligation to secure its borders. we are a nation of immigrants. everyby in this room cam from someplace else. everybody should come through

the legal process that we have to become a citizen of this country. [applause] >> want to underscore something. we like legal immigration. we like people coming here legally. we want to stop illegal immigration. so we can protect legal immigration in this country. thank you. [applause] all the way back there. >> i would like to thank you very much. >> my arms are long but not that long. >> i would like to know what you feel about the federal reserve. >> they are better at managing currency than congre would be. we have a choice of having a federal reserve, which is independent of politics, or

having congress manage our currency. i want to have a stable and strong currency. i think there are a lot of the things the federal reserve has done wrong. there are a lot of mistakes that have made. i can reverse some of those. i cannot imagine what would happen if we had congress doing it. i would keep the federal reserve and monitor them to make sure what they're doing comports with our values. at the same time, i am not looking to eliminate the federal reserve or replace them. their job is to keep our currency worth something and keep inflation at a reasonable rate. there is no question the mistakes were real. i would a point of a new head of the federal reserve to make sure we maintain the strength of america's currency grid does anyone want to add to that? senator? there is a question right here. just pass the microphone. >> i wou like to askour

position with regard to business, particularly focusing on the auto industry. we have seen cycles were the biggest companies in the world have gone bankrupt. what i would like to know is what you will do as president to put a firm foundation under businesses like that so they can be successful like they were in the past in this country. >> thank you. my own vw as to what general motors and chrysler got in so much trouble is that over the years, the unions asked for too much and the management gave too much. they all said, we are and to pass along the burden into the future. we will add more and more costs. you see numbers like $70 per hour being paid for people. ultimately, you cannot compete globally.

you cannot compete with foreign manufacturers if your compensation level is completely out of alignment. the areas th were a problem were the work rules and the legacy, retiree costs became overwhelming. companies were barring more money to pay for this and it could not go on forever. they had to go through bankruptcy a bankruptcy does not necessarily mean closing the doors. bankruptcy can mean the financiers, the shareholders lose their money, the bondholders lose their money. if they were not doing their job properly, in some respects, people are not born to cry about that. in the case of general motors and chrysler, i believe they need to go through bankruptcy to get rid of some of these debts and get the legacy costs' out of the way and bring compensation levels down. it was a failure of management that caused the failure of these industries.

going forward, if they start feeding at the trough again, putting on more and more obligations, building in more and more benefits, we will lose those industries. there is no reason we cann compete making cars and. they're doing it here. you are making bmws and selling them around the world. we can manufacture. [applause] this idea that we cannot manufacture is wrong. we can compete. foreign companies are coming here in right to work states. if you want states to have more jobs, make it right-to-work. as an old detroit die, i like cars and i want to keep seeing american cars. i do not see any reason we cannot have american cars. another reason we have had some challenges is when it came to american trade, he were so nervous with what the chinese and others might think, we did not stand up for ourselves. china has: intellectual property, patents, designs. the head back into our computers. -- they've hacked into our computers. that have held down the value of

their currency. it makes or prices artificially low and that drives american businesses out of business and kills jobs. to see a strong and vibrant s. auto industry, we are right to have to have song leadership among managers and we will have to stand up for people who cheat like china and. [applause] >> this is very important to south carolina. this goes back to why i endorsed governor romney to be the next president. we are trying to manufacture in south carolina. i sleep, eat, breathe jobs in the state because that is what we desperately need. if you give a person a job, you take care of a family. we have a lot of families to take care of. we have something to celebrate in south carolina. yesterday, i was at bmw. they produced their 2 million car in the state of south carolina. [applause] not only that, not only did they produce it, but they invested

and announced that they are investing $900 million more in the state of south carolina, starting a new model, the bmw x4, and announced a 1000 new jobs in the next four years. [applause] someone came up to me and said, how do we make sure that these jobs are going to happen? i said, we are going to get mitt romney as president. >> one of the most outrageous decisions i've ever made was folled up by an unconstitutional of women of members of the nlrb. -- appointment of members of the nlrb. the boeing company in seattle wanted to expand their business here in south carolina. you all know this. incredibly, incredibly, the nlrb prevented that from happening. where is boeing going to go?

overseas. the next time you hear the president of the united states say he wants to create jobs in the united states of america, think what is that all about? it is disgraceful. he just appointed members while the senate is still in session. if that holds, and i do not think it will, it could be a terribly dangerous erosion of the constitutional authority of the responsibility of the united states senate. this you lady right there, please. >> thank you for being here, governor romney. i was doing a science project on germs. i was wondering, how many hands you say per day anhow often the wash them? [laughter] [applause]

>> that is a very important question. you will be happy to hear that i do wash my hands regularly so that as i shake your hand today, y do not have to worry about whether the terms i got earlier today in florida will be coming to south carolina. i wash my hands regularly. i use hand sanitizer to make sure i do not pass this along to faulty. -- to folks. i appreciate that. that is a good question. thank you for your science project. [applause] there is a question over there it >> social security and strengthen it for future generations. >> that is a great question and an important one. i go to various places and see signs outside. they say they are building a republic of change by having signs that say do not touch my medicare or social security. i say i agree with you guys because there is only one president that has cut medicare by $500 billion. that is barack obama.

he cut medicare $500 billion. not to reduce our deficit but to pay for obama care. it is unthinkable. seniors across this country better recognize what he is willing to sacrifice to pay for his new entitlements. i will protect social security and medicare and i would not change those programs for current retirees or those getting close to retirement. thoswho are 55 and older. people count on those programs and understand how their work. i would t change them. for people who are younger, 20, 30, early-'50s. i want to make sure the promises we have made are the promises we keep. that is the way the nation has what would i do? for the next generation of seniors, i would say to them at we probably ought to add a year or two to the retirement

age. people who are 20 or 30 will know the retirement age will not be 65 or 67, it will move u one or two years. i would give bigger benefits to lower income folks that i would to higher income folks. the inflator used for higher income people would be lower than that for lower income people. that way, people would be able to use social security in the future. with regard to the next generation of medicare, i would give people something a lot like medicare advantage, the premium support program where people can take their premium support and use it either to buy traditional medicare or by a private medicare plan. some people, like me, would rather have a private medicare plan where if i do not like the service i am getting, i n get rid of it and go to another one or back to standard medicare. those are the changes i would make. the key thing is this, we have

got to protect those programs for current retirees and we have to make sure the promises we have made our promises we can deliver. it is essential to protect medicare and social security for our current generations and coming generations. thank you. [applause] here is one in the front row. >> would you comment on your plans for energy independee? >> yes. thank you. something happened a few years ago that has changed the energy picture in this country. we always been able to drill a vertically into the earth to get oil and gas. they found a way to grow vertically and then go horizontals. i do not know how they do it, but they go horizontals. going horizontals, they can tap into pockets of oil and gas. they forced fluid into the ground and it pushes the oil and gas out for these rizontal pipes that they put

in. by virtue of those technologies, we have discovered massive new natural gas reserv in pennsylvania, north dakota, texas, oklahoma. we have about 100 years of natural gas. it is cheap because there is so much of it. he one of the way to become energy secure is by taking advantage of that natural gas. we have an administration that does not seem to like gas, coal, nuclear, oil, any of the major providers of energy for the nation. they like wind and solar. i also like wind and solar but they are not want to make us energy independent. i was with an executive at a large chemical company and he said he just announced a $20 billion factory in saudi arabia. he said, we wanted to build in pennsylvania but the regulators in this cotry are making it so hard, we do not know if we would ever be able tget the gas for our facility.

we have to go to saudi arabia. we have to get our regulations and regulators to encourage private enterprise and encourage our energy sources. i will develop our gas, oil, coal, nuclear resources. i will direct the secretary of energy to provide licenses to those who do the drilling for oil and gas. start getting that energy also we are not as beholden to the cartel's around the world. [applause] i want to thank you. do not get up yet. i am going on for another hour. i am just kidding. [laughter] this is such an extraordinary country that the people who come here, the passion that people have is inspiring to me. i had the chan of helping organize the of the games in ut in 2002. when our kids got a gold medal

in the national anthem was played, our young people would put their hand over their hearts. the only people in the world to do that. you can see our kids singing the natial anthem, sometimes getting the words right. we are a patriotic people. this tradition of putting our hand over our heart was begun by fdr during the second world war. he asked us to do so in recognition of the blood that was being shed by our sons and daughters in far off places. we are a patriotic people and i happen to believe that despite all the challenges we have, that if we have leaders like these will tell the truth and live with integrity, who know how to lead,hat if they draw on the patriotism of the american people and ask for the sacrifices necessary to this nation's strong, we will overcome our challenges and as rona reagan used to say, this wonderful, shining city on the

hill. i will -- i intend to be one of those leaders if you give me your vote. thank you. [applause] ♪ [ctioning performed by national captiing institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪ [no audio]

♪ ♪ ♪ [no audio] ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [no audio]

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [no audio] ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [no audio] ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [no audio] ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [no audio] ♪ ♪ [anchors aweigh]

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> here on cspan today, we will be at myrtle beach, south carolina for a town hall meeting for undecided voters. it will be hosted by congressman tim scott and virginia congressman -- virginia governor bob mcdonnell. we will have that for you at 5:30 eastern time here on c-span as well as on cspan radio and c- span.org. here is a look at the candidates

calendar for today. a number of them are in south carolina and most of them will be attending a forum hosted by the former arkansas governor mike huckabee. it will be at the college of charleston that starts in about 45 minutes. all the candidates will attend a except for ron paul. who is taking a break from the campaign trail and he will be in texas today. >> it is easy to follow the presidential candidates through social media. you can follow what the candidates are posting in real time and read the latest from political reporters. and what viewers like you are saying plus access the most recent video from the candidates at c-span.org/campaign 2012. >> in this episode, we will take a look at the record very surprising comments on climate change and the scientists behind a research. >> there are a substantial

number of scientists who have manipulated data. >> i've rate different comments by politicians on 81-4 scale. you say something really outrageous that is inaccurate, you'll get 4 pinocchios. >> in his "washington post" fact checker column, glenn kessler rates the candidates. >> if a politician says the same thing over and over again even when it has been pointed out is untrue, they will just say it any way. >> that as sunday night at 8:00 &a."pan's q >> former house speaker newt gingrich and rep santorum spoke yesterday at a forum and duncan,

south carolina. this event was hosted by the republican party of spartanburg and greenville county and runs about one hour, 20 minutes. [applause] [applause] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

>> good evening, once again ladies and gentlemen. we are broadcasting live from our gop 2012 presidential candidate forum. we're now joined by former speaker of the house, newt gingrich, the will make his way to the podium in the next few minutes to read he is joined this evening by his wife calista. we welcome the former speaker of the house, newt gingrich? [applause] [no audio] >> let me just say i am thrilled to be here and you have two great congressmen here as a moderate its allies suspect will do a lot better job than some of

the report porter's we have been up against. i am looking forward to it. [applause] >> speaker gingrich, on behalf of congressman duncan and everyone here, we can scarcely imagine the sacrifices that are involved with running for political office. we want to thank your families for the sacrifices they make as you go on this journey. [applause] speaker gingrich, the justices have two things in common -- they are widely perceived as being applicant -- activist judges with a liberal bias and were appointed by democratic presidents. how can we make sure we're not surprised again by the supreme court nominations and a gingrich administration? >> that is a very important

question. let's broaden it by how we balance the judiciary. if you go to newt.org, you'll see a 52-page paper that starts with the declaration of independence and goes to jefferson, jackson, lincoln, and franklin delano roosevelt and outlines the powers of the legislative and executive branch to rebalance the courts when they get out of cycle. if i am nominated by you and i believe your primary will be the key, if i am nominated by the republican party and i become president, i will appoint constitutional judges who believe in american history and believe we are endowed by our creator and they believe the constitution is a contract and their job is limited to interpreting the law, not to rewrite it. you cannot just rely on that. if you look at the history of united states starting with the

revolutionary war where the number two complaint of the american revolutionaries was against activist british judges who they regarded as dictators and the number one comply was no taxation without representation. they set out in the constitution to limit the judiciary. they created three co-equal branches. the first two branches is the legislative branch. the second branch is the executive, the president and the third and least powerful is the judiciary. this is was a subset in 1958 by the warren court who asserted that the supreme court is the last word on the constitution which is factually false. the supreme court is one of three interpreters of the

constitution. the other two are the congress and the president. they all swore an oath to uphold the constitution very constitution is a freestanding document. we have four liberal and four conservative judges and justice kennedy. justice kennedy which opened wednesday and as liberal, we have had a one-person constitutional convention. by 5-4, we have a liberal document review wasa on thursday and is conservative, we have had a one-person constitutional convention and we now have a conservative constitution. this is not the founding fathers did not interpret one person as an appointed lawyer being a one- person constitutional convention. they intended for the court to be limited. i would appoint conservative justices and i would support the congress in limiting the reach of the court. the 14th amendment says congress shall define personhood. i will support the idea that we should pass a law that says

personhood begins at conception and the court will not be able to appeal or review law. [applause] i want to say two other quick things. this is a topic at work on for nine years. by the way, i was inspired by the ninth circuit court in 2002 when the role that one nation under god was unconstitutional in the pledge of allegiance and i decided that the supreme court needed a thorough study. i personally believe we have to be much more militant. i will give you three examples. jefferson, in 18 02, passed the judicial act of 82 and abolished 18 out of 35 federal judges. it was slightly over half. several of them tried to file a lawsuit saying it was unconstitutional and remaining 17 judges refused to take the case in the grounds that jefferson would abolish their court. [laughter]

i think that is an extreme example. let me show you the framework historically very we are not helpless. we are not governed by nine lawyers. [applause] when asked if the supreme court was supreme, jefferson said that is absurd, that would be an oligarchy. jackson said that is their opinion. in my branch, the presidency killed in the constitutional grounds. they have an opinion and he said he will exercise his judgment. lincoln who was offended by the dread scott decision, in his first inaugural says this has to be the law of the case. it cannot people of the land

because it is ridgy if nine people can creep along the line, we the american people have no freedom. that is pretty definitive [applause] franklin delano roosevelt on arresting 14 nazi spies and saboteurs who had been blinded by submarine says to his attorney general, as commander in chief during world war two, he said in my commander-in-chief role, i am ordering you that they will be tried by military tribunal and will be executed within three weeks. i want you to probably instruct the supreme court that we will not recognize habeas corpus. that matters because there was a recent supreme court case in which they imposed american civil liberties on enemy combatants on a battlefield. it is a fundamentally an american decision violating the

role of the commander-in-chief as defender of united states and as president, i will instruct the national-security apparatus to ignore that ruling and i would inform the court it is null and void on the ground that it interferes with a constitutional duty of the president of united states to defend the united states. [applause] >> welcome to south carolina. as a member of the committee on natural resources, the question i have -- americans have spent billions of dollars that are collected in user fees to construct yucca mountain, a facility that was supposed to store nuclear waste but was blocked by harry reid and president obama. the savannah river site reside in my district. if you were my president, would you press for the opening of yucca mountain and how would you remove nuclear waste temporarily stored in south carolina and what would you do to ensure that south carolina ratepayers get our money back?

>> that is pretty straightforward. the tie and suit -- the scientists have said is totally safe. you have to meet the concerns of the people of nevada in terms of the safety of delivering the materials. we should negotiate with the people of nevada to get their approval.

under what circumstances would you consider a recess appointment and what is the force of law, if any, of executive orders? >> let me -- those are two very good questions. but they're very different topics. so if you don't mind, i'm going to separate them. a recess appointment is a time-honored pattern by which, if the congress is in recess,

the president is in a position to make the appointment which only lasts until the end of that term of congress unless the appointment is ratified by the senate. in all of american history there's been a counter varlinge pattern which is that either the house or the senate doesn't go out. and if they don't go out they're not in recess. and this is a dance the two branches play which is part of our balance of power. this president is the most anti-constitutional president in the history of the united states. [cheers and applause] now, i'm act to go meddling here, so you all bear with me. one, there's no doubt in my mind that he is a sol alynn ski radical who believes in breaking down the norms and the patterns of the united states and that what he is doing is

unconstitutional and a violation of the law. two, there's a very simple answer which i would apply to the national labor relations board and to the new credit agency that he has illegally appointed people to. the republicans in the house should announce that they will in fact cut off all funding, period, that they will not fund it. it will seize to exist. the power of the purse is unequivocally in the congress' hands. no money shall be spent except as passed by the congress. if you want a constitutional showdown, we will show you. you act illegally, we will cut off your money. a [cheers and applause] look, and let me be very clear about this because i am meddling and i think it is time somebody did. [applause] when i was speaker of the house, we collided head on with bill clinton and the result was we got to four consecutive

bludgets, we reformed wafer, we had the first tax cuts in 16 years but he had to know that we were deadly serious. now, does the president have advantage? of course if he's a liberal democrat he has even more advantage. he has the power of the white house and the elite media on his side. but we have two greater powers. we have the constitution of the united states and we have the american people. [cheers and applause] now, as to the executive orders, i believe they go all the way back to george washington and a correct executive order establishes within the law how the presidency will excute the law. that's why it's an executive order. it does not make law, it does not change law. and if it tries to do so it is by definition a violation. i intend to use executive orders on the very first day. i want to stop and sign a

number of executive orders. the very first one will abolish all of the white house czars as of that moment. [cheers and applause] and any executive order which is infringes upon the law should promptly be met by a lawsuit by the congress on the grounds that the president is now violated his oath of office and is making law instead of excuting law. [applause] >> mr. speaker as cochairman of the sovereignty caucus, sovereignty is very important to me. many americans are leery of the united nations and efforts of the officials and other international organizations to constrain american power and infringe on our sovereignty. conservatives see treaties such as the kyoto protocol the law of the sea the proposed u.n. arms treaty, programs like agenda 21 as international

efforts to regulate the united states in way that is the american people would never agree to through our democratic process. if elected, how would you treat the united nations and operate within the international system to protect the united states national interests while preserving american sovereignty? >> that's a very important, very powerful question and let me point out it makes it truly disturbing is that a significant part of the american elite joins with these efforts to undermine american sovereignty because they know they can't get what they want inside the u.s. and so they seek clever international agreements to force us to do things we would never do if they came at us straight on. take for example the small arms treaty which is an effort to violate the second amendment. i am unequivocally totally opposed to any kind of treaty which limits the right to bear arms and i would lead an effort by the united states to convince the rest of the world that every country should have

a second amendment because that way the people can protect themselves from the government and every country should have that right. [applause] so let me go down the list. as speaker of the house i sent a separate delegation to kyoto to watch al gore try to sell out the united states and that's what they were doing. the environmentalists were there cutting a deal that they would adopt an agreement that was totally anti-americans so europeans loved it and they would exempt china and india so they loved it and it was a total mess. and this is really weird. our folks came back and said you realize the last few hours they ran out of money to pay the translators. this is really true. the last few hours they were all there babbling with no translation trying to figure out what it was they were writing. what was the result? the kyoto treaty was rejected in the u.s. senate 99-0. teddy kennedy and jacques john

kerry voted no. al gore had it so bad that even his left wing thought it was crazy. when i left the speakership i agreed to cochair with former senate majority leader george mitchell. let me assure all of you, however bad you think the u.n. is, it's worse. this is a corrupt bureaucratic largely anti-american collection of people from all around the world who have come in order, frankly, to find ways to limit and undermine us often at their own vanl. the united nations needs to be thoroughly overhauled. if i were president i would say to every ambassador i appointed one of your top three assignments is to gather votes for the fundamental overhaul of the united and i would say to the state department one of your primary assignments is to begin building a democratic alliance outside the united

nations so we can make clear that the general assembly which has countries often smaller than our counties should not be taken overly seriously because it is now increasingly an anti-american assembly and has been growing more and more so for the last 30 years. and our state department far from standing up to it under obama, our state department recently held a conference with the organization of islamic countries in order to talk about how to sensor americans from criticizing islam in a way which i regard as the most fundamental betrayal of the american system you can imagine. we have to stand up for our civilization and we have to stand up for our sovereignty and we have to stand up for america as a country that is exceptional and frankly i don't care if that irritates the international elites and i don't care if it bothers the new york elites. [applause] >> one third of south

carolina's congressional degreegation is african american. which may well be the highest percentage in all of congress. our governor is indian descend and i can't think of a single approvalable example of voter suppression. how much longer will we have to ask permission from the department of justice for something as simple as requiring a voter id before you vote? >> i think you misunderstand the sensitivity of the attorney general whose interest in having dead people, illegal people, nonpeople, invented people have their full rights. the democratic party everywhere

in the country is terrified of honest voting. i mean, you see this all over the country. it's one of the most amazing patterns that the news media refuses to cover. in georgia when we first took this up we went so far as to say we will give you a free photo id. so there's no question, you don't have to pay for it, if you don't own a car that's fine, if you don't have a drivers license that's fine. but we would like to know that you are you when you vote. this was seen by every left winger in the country as a vicious act of repression of nonexistent people. and i think we have to understand their fear. if the only people who vote in american elections are law-abiding, hard-working citizens who are deeply committed to america, the left wing of the democratic party will cease to exist. [cheers and applause] i want you to know that among the drekt directions i will

issue on the first day about two hours after the inaugural will be an instruction to the attorney general to drop the lawsuit in south carolina on voting -- ]applause] >> and instruction to the attorney general to drop all three lawsuits about illegal immigration. ]applause] it is the job of the united states to enforce the law and to work with those who are willing to help enforce the law, not to obstruct the enforcement of the law. and that's the kind of attorney general i would want to appoint. >> mr. speaker, my 16-year-old son recently had a school project where he asked the freshman united states congressman from south carolina to describe and define what they believe to be the american dream. what in your opinion is the american dream and what are you going to do to protect that

dream so that my son has the same freedoms and liberties that the nation had when you were 16? >> that's interesting at two levels. i can't help but comment that your son is doing all right if he gets to having his school project interviewing all the congressmen of the delegation. that's not a bad deal as research goes. when i was 16, my father was serving in the united states army. and we were in germany and i had just decided the previous year that i would do what i'm doing now, because we had earlier lived in france and we watched the french paratrooper kill the fourth republic and bring back general degaulle and i realized that everything about this process is real. the countries can die. that leadership makes an enormous difference. i grew up surrounded by people who believe passion naturally

in america and they believed in america because they didn't have very much economically. when i was a child we lived above a gas station in the square in pennsylvania when my dad was in careera. we didn't think we were poor. we knew we didn't have much money but we weren't poor. but we were americans. therefore, we were rich. we had freedom. we had a sense of safety. we believed in fair play. we thought everybody had an equal opportunity to pursue happiness because they had been given that by their god. i was raised in part by a grandmother who was very old-fashioned so she taught me the kind of patriotism they taught in the 1920s and 1930s, this belief that george washington was a heroic figure, the belief that the founding fathers were wise. and in my childhood i was only 100 miles from philadelphia so we could go and we could see independence hall, we could see valley forge.

we could have this sense of what it took to make america. i would say to your son, i would say to every young person in america that the american dream is to recognize first that we exist under our creator and because of the endowment by our creator of unalienable rights. no president, no congress, no judge, no bureaucrat can take away our right. that's why they're unalienable. but because we exist under god, and because we have been endowed by our creator, we also have responsibilities. the right to pursue happiness implies also, you ought to get off your tail and pursue it. [cheers and applause] we also have a very deep strain in us that often our nugse are terrified of and it comes in part from south carolina.

and from north carolina and from tennessee. and it's the jacksonian tradition. andrew jackson was here. i think he was 13 yeerings old when a british cavelry officer struck him with a sabor leaving a scar on his face for the rest of his life. and he represented a scotch-irish tradition that was represented not far up the road here where the americans gathered together to slaughter the british in revenge for other indignities. we are a tough country. we are a country that believes in the flag that has a snake on it that says don't tread on me. we're a country that believes we have not yet begun to fight. we are a country that says to others, we have no interest in coming over there as somebody once said, the only part of france we wanted was the grave yards for our troops. i think it's very important for your son to learn to be an american means that you have to

love the country, you have to love what it has stood for, you have to love what it offers every single american of every background, and you have to dedicate yourself to working all of your life for your family, your friends, your neighbors, for the chance to pass on to your children and your grandchildren what is the freest, most open society in the history of the world, a treasure that we should not lightly give up or lightly allow to be taken away from us. [cheers and applause] >> pleek, thank you very much for taking time to share your thoughts as you always brilliantly do with us. as we reach the conclusion of our q and a portion, i would like to give you an opportunity if you have any closing remarks

that you would like to make, to do so at this time. >> he said i could have 50 minutes because i was a professor. santorum was a lawyer, he'll get three minutes. let me just say i first came to south carolina to help the conservative movement in 1964 to columbia to a goldwater training program and the chair of that program i think still is in greenville. i came back over the years, my younger daughter came here to go to brezztirne. her husband's grandfather was the dairy agent for the whole state based in clemson. his father was strom thurman's first chief of staff in the senate. we have long ties and great affection as georgiaens for the state of south carolina. this is the most important election of our lifetime.

if barack obama, with the disaster he has been, can get reelected, the level of radicalism he will impose in his second term will be beyond anything we have imagined because he will feel totally vindicated in the approach he has taken. so defeating him is central to everything we're doing. he already has 240 million in the bank according to the newspaper this morning. they intend to run the most dishonest, ruthless, vicious campaign in history because it is the only hope they have for winning. they've gone from being a campaign that said yes we can to a campaign that says why we couldn't. and they can't run on any positive achievements. i believe the key to defeating obama is two things. it is secondly having someone who can stand on the same platform and defeat him

decisively in debate by proving the difference between american exceptionalism and the radicalism of sol alynn ski, between getting a pay check through a great jobs program such as reagan had and i did in the 90s and the food stamp program that barack obama has. between an american energy program that would include offshore development of your natural gas for $29 billion worth of supplies with $80,000 a year jobs and his anti-american energy program. you need somebody who can carry that case so convincingly that they wash away a half billion dollars of advertising. that's how important this is. second, you need a solid conservative because you have to be able to draw the contrast. if we run a moderate who is in any way close to where obama is, we'll lose because the moderate won't be able to expend anything.

my only appeal to you, say two things and i'll get out of the way for rick, who is a good friend. we've known each other for years and we're very fond of his family. i would say two things about why i think i'm uniquely the right person. first, i've done all this. i helped reagan with the campaign, with the economic plan. he created 16 million new jobs. i designed the 1994 campaign which had the largest one-party increase in american history, 9 million extra votes. we kept our word. we created 11 million new jobs and we balanced if federal budget. so i'm the only campaign on that scale. done this. there's a second reason and i think i hope you'll think about this. if we end up splitting the conservative vote, we're going to stumble into nominating somebody that 95% of the people in this room are going to be very uncomfortable with.

and it's just that simple. and i believe if you look at the polling data and you look at everything that's gone on and the scale of the campaign, i believe if you will help me, if we can win on the 21st, we will go into florida with momentum and we will win in florida. and if we win those two back to back, we will guarantee a conservative nominee on a conservative platform to offer a clear and decisive choice. and i believe that is the only road that gives us a chance to beat barack obama and the only opportunity we have to put american exceptionalism back in charge in washington, d.c. thank you. good luck. and god bless you. [cheers and applause]

>> thank you very much, mr. president. thank you for taking the tinal out of your schedule. former speaker could cram a 15-minute speech into 5 minutes. we will continue with our program when we come right back. we're going to take a quick commercial break because of course at news radio wmb ord we happen to be capitalists. so we'll take a quick break and then we'll come right back.

>> we had like to thank former speaker of the house newt gring rich for joining us here. and i would like to thank our sponsors for our broadcast. the web site www .for.assets.com. and our friends at warrant building lo. . >> >> as we continue with our program this evening, the next 25 minutes or so here, we will bring up our next candidate who has joined us this evening. richard john santorum was born may 10, 1958 in virginia the second of three children. his father, an immigrant from italy, is a psychologist, and his mother kay is a nurse. rick santorum mostly grew up in the suburbs outside of pittsburgh, pennsylvania, a city i know very well but

actually graduated from high school in illinois in 1990, a 32-year-old rick santorum ran for political office for the first time as a long-shot candidate for the united states house of representatives from pennsylvania's 18th congressional district representing the suburbs of pittsburgh where he had been raised. surprising all the pundits, santorum won the election knocking seven-term incumbent doug wall gren out of office. in 1984 he won election to the u.s. senate at the age of 36, again knocking out a long tenured incumbent. six years later he won reelection to a second term when he became chairman of the senate republican conference. in 2006, a year many of you recall, democrats nationwide made sweeping gains in congressional elections rick santorum failed in his reelection campaign to democrat bob casey.

mr. santorum seaved his undergraduate degree from penn state university, his mba from the university of pittsburgh, and his law degree from the school of law. he and his wife karen are the parents of seven children. will you welcome, please, former pennsylvania senator rick santorum. [applause] . .

>> on behalf of all of us, we can scarcely imagine the sacrifices that you and your family are making in pursuit of this office, motivated, i am sure, by love of country. on behalf of all of us, i want to thank you and your family for those sacrifices. [applause] >> i think that is my cue to introduce my wife who is right here, karen. so if you welcome karen who is here with me. [applause] the rest of the family is here also. country and many in the offices in charleston. we have all seven kids.

many of you have seen my children as we have been traveling around. you will see more of them between now and saturday. >> senator, you cannot serve in congress and look at the budget without realizing that entitlement programs or what is driving the debt. congressman ryan proposed what jeff and i found to be a very courageous foreign package -- a reform package. what would york and that of a reform package look like? would you agree that come a few -- what would your reform package look like? would you agree that, if you -- >> the federal budget is the highest priority for the president to go in there and take this profligate spending, this dramatic increase in the size and skill of government and get government back to its constitutional limits, get back to a budget that is not going to mortgage our children -- not even mortgage, but bankrupt our country if we do not get this runaway government under control. you also know -- you highlighted it -- that there is a reason for this big budget deficit. a big chunk of it is because the economy is not generating a lot of revenue. it is not generating a lot of tax revenue. we're below the historical average, which is 18% of the overall economy being collected in revenue. but we are way over the amount of spending we are doing. we are up to almost 25% of the economy which is consumed by government spending. that is way above the historical average of 18%. part of that is because the economy is doing poorly and spending goes up because, if you have all of these transfer programs, all of these welfare programs, like unemployment insurance and the like, they

cost more money. but there is a structural deficit problem. even if the economy was booming and we had revenues of, expenditures down, we would still be in a very bad deficit position. social security is one such example. up until last year, socials a tree was running a surplus. it is no longer running a surplus. and it will not run a surplus ever again unless we change it. it will never meet the amount of money -- the amount of money will never meet what we pay out unless we change it. this is what he is referring to. the entitlements. a lot of people say that social security is not an entitlement for the me define an entitlement to an entitlement is something in all that, if you qualify for under the law, you get it. you are entitled to it. you may say, i paid into it some. it does not matter. it is an entitlement. we have 72 entitlement programs in washington, d.c. when everybody goes out to that -- and i know this has been a popular thing to talk about -- and talks about earmarks, i have already taken a position that jim demint as. we need to end earmarks. but let's be very clear. that is less than 1% of the budget. it is the part of the budget that is non-entitlements. earmarks have nothing to do with entitlements. they have to do with discretionary spending, which presented to parts. -- which breaks into two parts. defense and non-defense, which is domestic spending, which comprise less than 40% of the budget now.

and in remarks are a very small portion of that. the idea that we will reform your marks and solve the deficit -- reform earmarks and solve the deficit problem, the deficit problem is not in defense spending. defense spending 50 years ago is not 20% of the budget. it was 60% of the budget. when some say, well, we need to slash our defense because it is causing a huge budget deficit, it is not. [applause] what we have to do is deal with entitlements. how do we do that? i break then into to pieces. one is the entitlement programs and the other is medicaid and medicare. they are anti-party types of programs.

-- they are anti-party types of programs. there is a whole host of school lunch programs. a whole host of them that are out there that people are entitled to if they meet certain income qualifications. these are all programs that come in my opinion, have absolutely no business at the federal level. [applause] under the constitution, but under common sense, we do not need to be solving these problems at a level so far removed from the people that they are trying to help. we need to understand the principles of our country, our founders, was to build a great nation from the bottom up and to be able to solve problems closest to where the problem is. some problems are beyond the family's ability to solve, the community or the churches ability to solve.

but we should not automatically, as we have done over the many years and as, automatically go to the highest level of government to solve these problems. so what i have suggested and others agree with this -- we need to eliminate these entitlement programs. need to cap them, cut them, capt., send them back to the state, remove the federal oversight, and let the states have the ability to deliver these programs. [applause] , like other people who are running for office, i have actually done this. -- unlike other people who are running for office, i have actually done this. how was the author of the house welfare reform proposal. it was part of the contract with america occurred when i came to the united states senate, i manage to the welfare bill on the floor of the united states senate. it had more to do with passing the bill that may be anybody else other thanbill clinton vetoed it twice and we had to change it to make him happy.

and clay shaw was in the house while i was in the senate. the washington post justed a -- i just did a fact check on the statement and they said it is a japan no, not a pinocchio. it is true. -- it is a giapetto, not a pinocchio. we were able to get bipartisan support to do something that had never been done in the history of our country. and a broadbased federal entitlement -- end a broadbased federal entitlement. [applause] president clinton vetoed. we communicated with the american public. we told them what will there was -- what welfare was doing and how much harm was being done. we can and we must do the same thing. go out and communicate to the american public that these programs, as well-intentioned as there, are not helping people as -- as they are, are not

helping people as much as they could. and we need to give the flexibility to the local committees to make sure that these programs are not dependency programs. do what we did with welfare, give them back to the state with two requirements. number one, a work requirement, never to come a time limit. -- no. 2, a time limit. those two things. [applause] if we can do that for the rest of these programs, like we did for welfare, we can accomplish when we did in welfare. the two things we were able to accomplish -- we cut the rolls by over 50%. that is a good thing. but it is not a good thing if we cut the rules and people ended up in abject party. but that is not what happened. people went back to work. people went back to work and started providing for their families. poverty rates hit the lowest level ever in the most chronically poor in america. [applause] so we have a model that works on medicare and social security are different programs. i agree with the paul ryan plan.

but i am not for waiting 10 years. we have $15 trillion debt, which is the size of our economy. if we did not have a federal reserve and can print our own money, we would be greased pig -- we would be greece. if we were in the european union, they would force us to do austerity measures. and we have a president who is whistling through the graveyard at night as though nothing is wrong. [applause] we need to have an honest conversation with the americans and with seniors and with young people about what we can do. here's what we need to say to seniors with respect to medicare. you believe in yourself? you believe you can handle yourselves and your freedom. or do you need to be rolled? -- do you need to be ruled?

what dr. lucy, what benefits you get, what -- what doctors you see, what benefits you get, what copays you pay. we trust that you can go out with the same resources that are provided under medicaid/medicare and go and find a program in the marketplace that fits you better. seniors believe that they're capable of freedom or do they want to be ruled? i believe in the american people. i believe that seniors, as well as every american, while freedom is harder, they also know this about freedom. when we exercise our freedom, what ever economic freedom we exercise, there are lots of people out there across america who want to help you exercise that freedom. why? because they can profit from doing so. and they can help you.

we can help design using free markets instead of government a health care system that will lower costs, provide better care, quality care, better choices, better access, and not have government put artificial tass and rationed care which is what will happen under medicare. -- put artificial caps and ration care which is what will happen under medicare. [applause] i think i went along on the 1. >> catch your breath. welcome to south carolina, senator. a congressman from a state that understands there can be no national security without energy security, the question i have is this. south carolina is one of the nation's leaders in nuclear power. we're one of four states that gets the majority of our power from nuclear power do you support the use of nuclear power? how? i also want to give you an

opportunity to expand on your energy policy. >> i come from southwestern pennsylvania. in my old congressional district, when i served in the house, was westinghouse nuclear. i got very familiar with the nuclear power industry because westinghouse nuclear research facility is right in my district. i was one of the great promoters and supporters of nuclear power and still amicably nuclear power is in fact a long- term option for this country -- and still am. and believe thatthe clear power is in fact a long-term option for this country. i also believe in markets. markets have to be fair. in the nuclear kids, it is not -- in the nuclear case, it is not fair because it is so costly. it is so complex.

it is less economical to do. i know we can improve that somewhat. i believe that we need to improve it more. the market will probably drive non-nuclear power for the short term. the reason is because of a great supply of another fuel that is much cheaper and cleaner than even nuclear power well, not cleaner, but as clean as nuclear. that fuel has been driven by a dramatic increase in supply group i got a big kick in -- dramatic increase in supply. i got a big kick in president obama when he gave his speech in cleveland and he made fun of drilling. he made a if -- he made fun of sarah palin. we know that will not work, ha, ha, ha. here is the sad part. all students at cleveland laugh

at that. as if the president in the united states -- we are all familiar with economics 101 in college. the president took economics 1 50.5. [laughter] i guess the kids did, too, because they only understood demand and not supplied. -- not supply. you cannot reduce prices by only reducing demand. he wants to meet demand go down by telling you to inflate your tires properly and do all those things they wanted you to do instead of looking at both demand and supply. when i left the united states senate about seven years ago, the price of natural gas was $12. then we found this huge gas field in pennsylvania. we drilled about 3000 to 4000 wells a year in that field. if you look at the unemployment rate in pennsylvania, it is the lowest in the nation. small towns and rural areas are

growing and are prosperous because of the energy resources that were taken out of the ground. and guess who else is prospering? you are. because natural gas is not $12 and more. -- not $12 any morean article in the paper. yesterday says that now gas -- not $12 anymore. an article in the paper. yesterday, it said that now gas prices are down to $2.70. it is to give you an idea of what that means, that is $100 oil at $20 per barrel. in a matter six years. why? supply here. drilling here. yes, mr. president, drill, baby, drill works and reduces crisis and helps our economy. [applause] as a result of that, we need to actually expand our natural gas infrastructure. there are oil wells -- some gas comes off the oil wells because the mix in there -- but they fled the gas because there is not enough room in the pipelines to move the gas to market.

we have 300 years of natural gas. so when the president says that we must move and spend billions of your tax dollars in all this new green energy, look at the president and say drill, baby, drill natural gas. it works. we need to look at natural gas as not really an alternative to automotive fuel, but it is an alternative to a 18-wheelers and garbage trucks and buses and other fleet vehicles as a way of burning clean energy, affordable energy, energy that we produce in this country. we're 100% self-sufficient in natural gas in this country. it is a coup which should be using more of. -- it is a fuel we should be using more of. it is cheap and can be used in transportation. not again -- not, again, in automobiles. but it can be used in larger vehicles and we need to be moving in that direction. why? because natural gas vehicles

burn cleaner and the meanness on those vehicles is a lot less than when you are burning oil. so the long term use is cheaper and better for your engine. we need to expand the infrastructure so we can use natural gas. that is one example. there are some other things and we need to do. we need to do the same thing in oil, open up anwar and drill for oil. we will lower energy prices which will help make us competitive on a variety of fronts, including manufacturing group as you know, i am sort of big on manufacturing. one of the things that will help attract manufacturers in this country are lower energy prices. natural gas is a big magnet right now for manufacturing. >> when we talk about nuclear power -- i appreciate your stance on natural gas -- but getting back to nuclear power, the generation of nuclear power

and the creation of the nation's legacy weapons products has left us with product that need to be sourced somewhere. i would like to ask your opinion on amounting, the opening that, and if we are not good to open it as -- opinion on yucca mountain, the opening of that. >> i have supported the building of yucca mountain. we need to have a repository. i would work toward making sure that we do have a permanent repository. harry reid cannot stay in the senate forever, right? [applause] we hope. the objective would be to get a permanent repository. if, for some reason, that is foiled, then obviously the rate bears of south carolina who paid for it should get their money back. [applause] >> states, including south

carolina, are being sued for try to do what congress has abjectly failed to do, which is immigration reform. how do you balance respect for the rule of law, make allowances for our agricultural interests, and resolve this once and for all in this country? >> let me hit on the legal immigration part. then i will go into the legal. i am the son of a legal immigrant. i talked about my grandfather who came here and brought my dad when he was 7 years of age. he worked in this country for five years, earned his citizenship to make enough money and bring the rest of the family over. he left my dad from ages 2 to 7 and visited in him once for about two months. he made the sacrifices because america was worth it. it was worth leaving the family behind to be able to plant that flag and get your citizenship and give your children the opportunity to live in the greatest country in the history of the world.

when we talked about legal immigration, i think legal immigration is a great thing. it has to be a lot more ordered then it is today. the fact that we have a lottery system for people to come into this country is silly. people should not be in a lottery to determine whether they come to this country. they should come to this country based on a whole bunch of different criteria and one of them should not be chained immigration where relatives coming to the country because their relative is here. immediate family is one thing, but extended family is another. [applause] america needs to look for people who want to come here and be americans and want to contribute to this country. and i am not saying that we bring all rocket scientists into this country. we need a variety of different people and skills and we have to look at it from that perspective, not just economically. that is part of it. but we also look at it from the

standpoint of the kind of melting pot that america is and bringing in diversity which is good for america. so on the legal immigration fraud, that is a policy that we need to strengthen a little bit -- so on the legal immigration part, that is a policy that we need to strengthen a little bit. the obama administration has deliberately allowed -- restructured its so it will let work. the labor unions do not want the -- so it will not work. the labor unions don't want they competition. they do not want legals to be working in this country. so they have put pressure on the president to basically screw up all these programs. we will restore the ad worker program and the other visa programs where there is a demonstrated need in our society for people to have to come and do jobs that americans, as we have found, in the south carolina, georgia in

particular, are you have lots of produce that never ended up to market because there was not anybody there to harvest. we have to have responsible programs that work with our business community, work with their art -- with our agriculture committee, to make sure they have the labor that is necessary to do that. but that is irresponsible program that allows people to come and then leave. they can work here for the season and then are able to go home. with respect to illegal immigration, i'm somebody who believes that you enforce the law. and the law is that the orders should be secured and people unable to cross. and have whatever personnel and technology that is necessary to go from where we are today, which is a body that is 40% -- which is a border that is 40% secured to a border that is 100% secure. [applause] secondly, we will enforce a law in this country. that is on employers who

verified or another system that can be developed by the private sector, but require businesses to do the proper background checks to determine whether these people that are coming to work for them are in fact legal and are allowed to work in this country. and then, of course, enforce the lawand for th with respect to people who are in this country illegally and doing illegal activity and sending them back. that is deportations. and working with state and local governments -- i was talking with the sheriff in york county. he can and has the funds from the to the government to help, when they arrest people and five people who have broken a law who are illegals to be able to deport them. most of the state cannot do that because they are not provided the resources or the corporation. -- or the cooperationwe need to

make sure that. -- or the cooperation. counties and states have the resources to do something that the fed the government has obviously not been doing, and that is enforce the law. -- that the federal government has obviously not been doing, and that is in force the law. newt is my friend and we have a disagreement on this. i do not believe the people live been here -- i deny care how many years -- i do not care how many years -- should earn the right to stay in this country depending on how long they have been here. [applause] i have no animus toward people who want to come to this country. but when the first act of people that come to this country is breaker law, the first thing -- break our law, the first thing they should learn is respect for the law, not to break the law. [applause] and the idea that, because someone has been here 25 years

here and work and raise a family, that that fact should create an opportunity for them to be able to stay longer, i would just say this point if someone has been here 25 years, unless they are independently wealthy, they have probably broken a whole bunch of other laws, right? you had to work. if you were working, you were illegally working. and if you were working, you probably had a fraudulent id, which is illegal, or you had a fraudulent social security number, which is illegal. you probably still some is identity. -- you have stolen someone's identity. my grandfather separated from his family for five years and did it the right way. and there are millions of families in america that are separated -- that separate in order to follow belong to -- to

follow the laws of america and do it in the right way. people who break the law today and we send them to jail and separate them from their family. why? because they broke a law. so let's treat everybody the same and not treat people who broke into this country illegally differently. [applause] >> senator, i am co cent -- co- chairman of a sovereignty caucus. many americans are leery of the united nations and the efforts to constrain american power and infringe on our sovereignty. conservatives see trees like the -- conservatives seek treaties like the kyoto protocol, the proposed u.n. arms treaty as international efforts to regulate united states in ways that the american people would never agree to through our democratic process. as executive of this country, what do you see is the u.s. possible going forward in the --

the u.s.'s role going forward in the united nations? >> limited. [applause] it should be limited in my mind to basic national security issues. the united nations does provide some -- i underscore "some"-- value when it comes to security issues. they are run by countries or groups of countries whose values are not our values. and they are promoting things that do not comport with american values or american law or the american constitution. and why do we actively give legitimacy to things that work to promote values in the world that are different than ours? it makes no sense to me. to do so just because we want to open up relationships -- there are all sorts of other ways to have relationships with other countries as opposed to do it through organizations who are working against our country. systematically decide whether we will keep their relationship

or end the relationship, defund it, and narrow hours for dissipation. -- and narrow our participation. maybe that will send a message because the menu will the be -- because the money will not be flowing as it has in the past. maybe that will send a message that we need an international body that reflects international human rights that the united nations clearly does not. [applause] >> senator santorum, thank you very much. we are nearing the end of our time here. i want to give you five minutes or so to tell us why you should be the next president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you very much, gentlemen, for your questions. thank you very much for being here. i want to thank the people of south carolina for the hospitality that you have shown

us over the years. karen and i have been vacationing in south carolina almost our entire married life. my brother lives in south carolina and my niece is a coquette here. a cockette, i guess. i am not a native, guys. give me a break. anyways, we are very much connected to south carolina. we know the wonderful and warm hospitality of the people here. when you come down from new hampshire and the protesters and the screaming and hollering and the occupy wall street, it is great to be in the gentle south. [applause] i just want to say that south

carolina is a state that stands up and prides itself in strong traditional values and conservative values. it is a state that believes in less government, low taxation. it believes in states' rights. it believes in a limited federal government. and deeply believes in family and faith. as the foundational principles of our country. [applause] you have an opportunity in the selection to make a choice that will speak very loudly to our country. all i would ask you to do is to support a candidate that reflects the values of south carolina. [applause] over the next few weeks and over the past few weeks, you have been told that your job is to pick someone who can win.

to compromise those values that you believe in, to settle for something less, to settle for something that, well, maybe is not as authentic as your values. maybe it is not as consistent because we need so badly to win. you have been told this many times in the past. as republicans, you are constantly told that you cannot have a to really want because, well, if you put a real strong conservative up there, across the border on national security and on moral cultural issues, on economic and spending issues, then you'll have a hard time winning. and we need to win. and who is saying that to you? people who do not share your values. and they want you to compromise your valleys so they can have their bellies be represented on

-- your values so they can have their values be represented on a national ticket. the last time we had such a critical election was way back in 1980 when our country was in an economic malaise, according to jimmy carter. we had a hostage crisis in iran. sound familiar? we were considered weak overseas. and jimmy carter was managing decline. and you were told here in southern cal -- and south carolina to settle for something less so we can win. and you said no, we will not do that. we will take our chance, our vote, our message to the country and we will make a statement. we will stand for someone who believes in the values that we know will make america great again. and we will not compromise on that. i find it really incredible -- i hear the slot and legitimately so -- where people -- i hear this a lot and legitimately so

-- where people say why you compromise? why do you compromise on this or that? why did you not stand for your principles? why do you not stand for your principles? [applause] you want your leaders to lead? lead them. [applause] this is the most important election of your lifetime. south carolina very well may decide who the next president of the united states will be. do not defer your judgment to those who do not share your values, to those who do not want to see what happens to america what you want to see happen to america.

lead. be bold. remember this. when south carolina voted for ronald reagan, he was not ronald reagan. not the reagan we remember. he became the ronald reagan we remember. what you saw, the reagan, you believed he could be the reagan we would remember some day. the bold. do what is right for america. thank you and god bless. [applause] >> senator rick santorum. [applause]

ladies and gentlemen, we have used our allotted time and then sometime thank you for your patience. please, another nice hand for our two questioners tonight. thank you, gentlemen. [applause] and thank you all very much as well for taking time to come out tonight, expressing your patriotism, and showing your interest in america. we appreciate you being here. be safe going home. god bless you and good night. bee [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> later today, c-span will be in myrtle beach, south carolina with rep tim scott and gov. nell.acdonal here is a look at the gop presidential candidates' schedules today. most of the candidates are in south carolina. the state primary is next saturday. they are convening for discussion in charleston hosted by mike huckabee. except for texas congressman ron paul, who is taking a break from

the campaign trail in his home state. >> it is easy to follow the presidential candidates through social media. follow with the candidates are posting in real time. read the latest from political reporters. axis the most recent video from the candidates backed c- span.org/campaign2012. >> next, a discussion about wisconsin's potential in the 2012 elections. the primary is terrible third. this discussion is about 45 minutes. host: he is here to talk with us about the battleground states in

2012. talk to a single bed about wisconsin return to being a swing state or battleground state back in 2008. it was squarely on the side of the democrats and now not so much. >> in 2000 and 2004, when george bush was on the ballot, it was decided by less than half a dozen to point. -- less than half of a percentage point. in 2010, the state entirely flipped and republicans took over and they had their best election in wisconsin since 1938. we do swing and it is a volatile environment nationally. host: give me one of those reasons. guest: after the 2010 election,

there was a huge -- the bombshell there was his push to roll back collective bargaining for government employees. there was a round of recall elections last summer which resulted in the defeat of two republican legislators. now we're looking at a massive recall alexian involving the governor, which has happened only two times in american history. it's pretty extraordinary set of events. when you put it together with battleground states in the president to a year, it is like nothing i have ever seen before. host: the wisconsin primary is more than two months away.

have republicans started to look at wisconsin? are they beginning to woo wisconsin voters? guest: the processing kurds deliveries. given the way mitt romney is going, we may not have much of a race by april. so wisconsin follows super tuesday by about one month. combined with the fact there is so much unique that is going on in the state among the recall fight, i am not sure that the candidates want to get sucked into that. host: we are talking with craig

gilbert. we would like all of you to get involved in a conversation. you can follow the conversation on facebook. if the primary process for the republicans does go past super tuesday and into wisconsin, is there an early thought on who will benefit from having stretched out the race that far? who will be the most popular in wisconsin?

guest: wisconsin has an open registration. anybody can make their choice on election day to vote democratic or republican. so there would be a year when there would be no meaningful democratic party. independent voters and democrats will be free to vote in the party. it probably does not benefit necessarily --

it is a broad the electorate. there is a big republican bayesian wisconsin, -- republican based in wisconsin, so it would not be like the iowa caucuses. who that benefits -- it probably does not benefit of canada it bond like rick santorum, again, if we're talking in this area where the races still meaningful by then. mitt romney has done more than the other candidates in terms of early groundwork, and he is probably the kind of candidate that would do ok. host: our first call for craig gilbert from "milwaukee journal sentinel" comes from dawn in tennessee. caller: the last time i called the next caller called me and did it. -- an idiot. governor walker started messing with the unions. i am a yellow dog democrat, and very tired union person. i think -- retired union person. i think that is a bad thing. guest: we talked about this before. is becoming a polarizing figure, even compared to other governors, kind of the way president obama is, and president bush was. when you booked the polling, and democrats overwhelmingly dislike the guy, and

republicans overwhelmingly supports the guy. if people are entrenched. he is a lightning rod in the state. as a result of the fight over unions, public and please -- public employees are a big population in any state. this is petty electric. these are electric issues that he has stepped in the middle of. host: and joe on our line for independences. caller: i am an older guy. i have never belonged to a union. i was a construction contractor, and when i went to a new city i would always look for the union. there were usually the best folks to do a job in construction, and you could

depend on them. the main thing about the it is are remembered as a young man, about 10 years old, i went to work for a gentleman throwing papers out of his trucks, and but this gentleman who is deceased now, as i am almost 80, he threw out the left side. this has a point. bear with me. he had been one of the greatest athletes in this part of the state, had scholarships everywhere, they told me later on. i remember him coming out to the field when i was an older athlete. he only had one arm. he lost it in an accident. host: as interesting as this as i have to make a call count, and you are slowing me down. caller: he threw out the left and i through the right, and i asked what he got for the arm when they cut it off, and he

said he got two weeks' pay. which was $32. he made it through life selling papers and fireworks, but he lost his future because there was no progress of movement. he did not get anything. that is what we're trying to revert back to. if people forget how things were before the progressive movement took place. no retirement, and no insurance -- all this came about because of the unions. whether you were union or not, they would provide these benefits. host: is there a thought that the unions might be going away in wisconsin? guest: wisconsin has an interesting history. it has progressive traditions and was the cradle nationally for things like social security and workers' compensation. it is imbedded in the history of wisconsin and it also had a history of reform.

if you compare wisconsin with other states, it is certainly a more vibrant union labor movement and a lot of other places. union households represent typically about one-third of the elector. -- of the electorate in wisconsin. is it the constituency. host: next up is randy calling from river falls, wisconsin. go ahead. caller: i am union, but i am old school union. i am for health and safety and the union. -- in the union. with the state of wisconsin is doing as far as the union's goal, even a local ones, they can still negotiate wages and health care and everything else the only thing different with this collective bargaining is the state takes the money out of their checks and gives it to the union. the union does not get to work

for their money. now the unions have to go to the people and say we're going to do this for you and this for you, and if the people do not like what they're telling them, they deducted paid three g they do not get paid. the governor has the state coming along -- they do not get paid perianth the government has the state coming along pretty good. i am old school, health and safety. a lost my point of view here. anyway. host: randy, we will leave it there. two calls talking about the unions. will that be the biggest issue when we finally get a republican nominee? guest: i did not think so. in the recall election, the biggest explosion in u.s. history involving state

legislators in wisconsin, and a lot of the debate was not about unions. it was about the budget, spending and taxing decisions the governor has made. the feeling was people were entrenched and there were not going to change minds. the debate was much broader than that. if and when there is a recall election involving the governor, of the debate will be much broader than that. the presidential candidates will get sucked into the recall controversy wisconsin one way or the other. host: ron and our law and four republicans from boswell, indiana. caller: my grandfather and father started a union in chicago. the truth about the story is the union makes up less than 12% of the working public in the united states of america. it is a given thing.

we all understand that, but 12% does not make up the majority. the majority rules. if you get out there, and all of them will tell you get out and vote. it is the only way we can change any of these situations. as far as wisconsin, it is the same thing. we are sick of the corruption, and agreed. -- and greed. they're going to throw him out. people are not as dumb as they were even 10 years ago. host: craig gilbert, "milwaukee journal sentinel." guest: it is interesting to hear people talk about their own history with unions. this is why this debate has been so intense. in a state like wisconsin, a lot of people have the history in their family of union membership or of public

employees. i set out to figure out how big the constituency of public employe is represented in the state of wisconsin. akin to the conclusion 25% -- i came to the conclusion that 25 percent to 30% have a public union member in the household. these really pressed hot buttons for people. this is becoming a personal, political fight that has divided families. host: said antonio, texas, gladys, you are on "washington journal." caller: i think the unions are being unfair to the american people by being determined to get rid of the unions. that is not right.

that is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they started america. it is about a garment by the -- a government by the people in for the people. this governor is acting like a dictator. he does not have the right to take the power away from the people. that is my objective to his stance on the big unions. he does not ask. he goes in and says i'm going to do it whether you like it or not. the people put him in office and i hope the people take him all. -- take him out. guest: part of the debate in wisconsin has been over the fact that what happened was collective bargaining was not an explicit campaign issue in the 2010 election. it was a good environment for republicans. scott walker ran on getting concessions for the unions, but did not run on a rolling back collective bargaining and all the rules and union

certification that was implemented. part of the shock to the system, and even the governor has acknowledged that he did not live a foundation for this political giveaway he should have. that was a big reason for the melodrama we had, andy intensity of the protest. -- and the intensity of the protest. that will be part of the debate in this recall election. i think his response to that is you elected a republican government -- a clean sweep, and this is what we have done with that. now, people will decide whether to ratify that or not. host: in "the washington post's" this morning under the headline "endorsements show little effect" --

host: given the situation governor walker finds himself in right now, will the republican nominee for the presidency be angling for governor walker's endorsement or will he keep them -- him at a distance? guest: it will be important to get entangled in this debate. we saw this in ohio where there was a similar issue with a referendum to restrict and roll

back collective bargaining in ohio. at one point mitt romney was tabled up in his position on that issue because i think it is awkward for these national candidates. they really -- there is a demand in their political base to take sides. there will be a demand in the republican base to line up behind what scott walker is doing, just like there has been a demand and the democrats' base to support unions in this fight. you do run the risk of alienating people over that fight. host: john, connecticut, and our line for republicans. you are on with craig gilbert, the washington bureau chief of the "milwaukee journal sentinel." caller: i want to make a comment about the super pacs.

i think it is a great travesty in this country that the little man cannot donate $250 left eye did to john anderson of long time ago budget like i did to john anderson a long time ago. -- like i did to john anderson a long time ago. now you have these people in secret contributing. there's a lot of corruption. it is tantamount to bribery. i think it should be stopped. i am happy to see newt gingrich now agrees with barack obama of a sudden when all the republicans booed barack obama for chastising the supreme court, and now, out of nowhere comes newt gingrich of all people because he is effected by this, to come up and applaud barack obama. thank you. host: craig gilbert. guest: this has been

guest: this has been a bipartisan debate it crosses party lines. both parties have an interest in not exposing themselves to massive amounts of attack advertising. there are different issues -- where people can spend, what people can contribute, and then there is disclosure. the citizens united issue did not settle disclosure. it is possible to see as more candidates come into the crossfire of the super pacs, you might see support in both parties for at least writing tougher disclosure laws about the big super pacs. host: our next call comes from days mills, wisconsin, dennis, you're on the washington journal. caller: good morning. thank you for being on talking about the wonderful state of

wisconsin. i blog under free wisconsin. i would like to steer the conversation away from union talk, which is the beginning of the controversy in wisconsin, and get into things like the american legislative exchange council where scott walker is appearing in texas raising more funds to ed to his $10 million treasure trove. he was fined $500,000 for not disclosing the campaign contributions he received. i would like to move away from possibly just talking about the unions. what about alec, and americans for prosperity and scott fitzgerald, and scott walker.

guest: there are groups on the right, just as there are groups on the left, that put money into wisconsin. alc has been accused of setting the policy agenda for a lot of republicans at the state level. that does come into the debate. the caller mentions the money scott walker has raised. there is an interesting wrinkle in the recall law compared to other states. the bar is pretty high in wisconsin. you head. 540,000 in wisconsin -- you have to collect 540,000 in wisconsin. at the same time, there is on limited fund-raising on the part of the target of the recall. it time right now where positions are handed in.

the governor can raise money iunlimited amounts from his supporters. it is disclosed, but it is a huge political asset for him, and he has been spending a lot of that money on television, before he even has a democratic opponent. host: we are talking with craig gilbert, the washington bureau chief of "milwaukee journal sentinel." in addition, he is also cover the past six presidential elections as well as numerous house and senate races, written extensively on the battle for swing states in the upper midwest and was a former speech

writer for the late senator daniel patrick moynihan. back to the phones. mike, on our line for republicans, calling from honolulu, hawaii. caller: i'm enjoying this, mr. gilbert. i am a republican over here. i also belong to a union that takes money out of my check every week for the democratic cause, and if i did not go along with the item out of the union. it is the people's republic of hawaii that i belong in. anyway, the unions over here are skewed because we have it electoral votes, that we do have a woman here, a nice jewish ex-governor, area debt, a

moderate republican, and she is running for senate, the senate seat of daniel ek lockout. she has a good whack at it, i believe. if we keep our mouths shut, as mr. gingrich should have, we would have had gingrich as a nominee, but it will go to the conventions, i believe. what i think right now is that as a republican we have to really keep a low profile. we have to be very patient, and let the candidates vet, and the strongest person will rise. i myself think obama will tear romney apart in a debate. guest: i just came back from iowa and new hampshire. it has been an interesting race in a lot of ways.

not the most suspenseful nominating process we've seen because you have a candidate, mitt romney, a sort of the consensus front-runner who will be difficult to stop, but a lot of crazy twist and turns, up and downs that reflect the appetite in the republican base for the perfect candidate -- a candidate that speaks to their core conservatism, indicated that is viable. we have seen one candidate after another ride that wave and crash. we do not know how good a candidate or effective mitt romney is going to be and the general election. we have seen him perform well, well-financed, but we have seen him have his stumbles like in new hampshire when he made some gaffs, some comments, and fanned this story about a line

of attack from his opponents that in his private sector career he raided companies and caused people a lot of jobs. host: "wisconsin bankruptcy filings fall 10% in 2011" -- so when we get to april and beyond to the election in november, who stands to benefit from this headline the most? president obama or the republicans? guest: it is not a normal

course of events to have them on the ballot in the same year. in a way, they are tied to the hip. if they are bad, that is a problem for both scott walker and barack obama. the recall election is going to be more than just about unions. the governor made an explicit promise about job creation, promising that he would create thousands of new jobs by the end of his first term. he is not on track to do that. that will be an issue in his election. it is going to be fascinating to watch how the economy of fax both these political figures, both a republican and a democrat. host: speaking of which, i have a tweet from florida from gordon. take us through the process.

guest: we do not know the answer. we have a governor who is on the air with campaign ads. he does not know and he does not know who his opponent is going to be. there was a series of windows in the wisconsin recall law. we are expecting the democrats to submit a number far in excess of the 540,000 signatures that they need by law and then there is an undetermined length when the signatures have to be verified. the board has to go through this process, hundreds of thousands of signatures, trying to verify them and then calling an election. there could be a primary that will affect it. it could be anywhere from april until july or august. we do not know who the democratic candidate is going to be because there is a good chance we will have a democratic primary.

the ducks are not all lined up in a row for one person. host: back to the phones. grace is on our line for independents. you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. my voice is a little shaky this morning. host: you are doing just fine. caller: people black-and-white came from the south years ago to get union jobs. that was the start of a greater america. that is when we opened up small businesses and all work together. now, we are so doggone divided. no one is thinking about taking care of one another. everyone is caring about how much money they can get out. it is greed. thank you.

i am sorry. host: san bernardino, calif., stephanie, you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. in regard to your last comments of your guest, the difference between scott walker is he can push through his policies [unintelligible] guest: president obama did have a democratic legislative branch

after he got elected in 2008. scott walker had a republican legislature that he got elected with in 2010 which is how he was able to pass his budget. there was a series of recall elections last summer which claimed the jobs of two republican legislators. the republicans now have a one- vote margin instead of a three- vote margin. one of those votes is a legislator from a relatively democratic rural district who opposed the union changes. now is a dissenter on some of the parts of the republican agenda. right now, the republicans have lost some of their control over the legislative agenda. we are going to see another

round of not only the gubernatorial election, but there will be more legislative recalls. the democrats are targeting for more republican legislators this spring and summer. so the makeup of the legislature could change this year and in the november elections. host: back to the phones. mark is calling from boston, massachusetts. caller: i would like to applaud scott walker's efforts. i think it is admirable. it is not the unions of the 1930's or the 1940 spending what people are seeing today is far different than that. we have a state police that make $150,000 a year and a tire around 50 or 55 with a full pension, six figures, for the rest of their lives. that would be equivalent of saving $7 million or $8 million in your 401k for in come.

this is just blatant greed and unfairness. guest: scott walker has become a hero on the right because of the stand he has taken, going after the unions in wisconsin. he has been obviously vilified by the left for the same reason. it is interesting to see a governor so polarizing within a short period of time of taking office. he was in milwaukee county executive, not that well known in the rest of the state. suddenly overnight, he becomes a defining figure for all sides and a guy who is probably close to a 50/50 politician now for the rest of his term.

host: should he not be recalled, when would his term be up? guest: it would be up in 2014. one point i should note -- the last recall election was in california under a different set of rules. the way the california ballot look, you had an up or down vote on recalling gray davis, yes or no, and then if the yes's outnumbered the no's, you had a choice. in wisconsin, it is a regular election ballot. you are choosing between scott walker and a democratic candidate. so it is a little bit different. you can argue in some ways is more favorable to scott walker because it is a choice. if he is not popular, the committee -- he can make the argument that he is still better than his opponent.

host: how is the democratic opponent chosen? guest: by primary. unless there is a consensus in the party of who the candidate should be. host: when is the primary? guest: it will depend on the petitions. the primary could be in april, may, or june or even later. it depends on how long it takes for the bureaucracy and the courts to sort out the battle over the petitions that are submitted. host: back to the phones. florida, phil is on our line for republicans. caller: i wanted to ask your guest about -- wisconsin has always had a strong anti-war movement of there. i have been involved for years down here in florida. i am calling on the republican line because i registered

republican to vote for the only candidate, republican or democrat, who is against the wars, who have pledged to stop these 10-year ongoing wars. what i am seeing in the anti-war movement, even though the democrats got in and took impeachment off the table in 2006 and massively funded the wars in to the obama administration, since then did not apply the same standard of impeachment to obama. now we are going into possibly iran. has the guest seen any folks moving from the democrats, the union people there, give up that line loyalty to a party and switch over to supporting the anti-war candidate ron paul?

guest: i do not know if i have seen that. ron paul is one guy who might do well depending on the circumstances because there is an anti-war tradition in the upper midwest that we see over time. he draws a lot of his support from independents. independents can vote in large numbers in a state that has that anti-war tradition. if we still have a race in early april, that could help ron paul. we saw him do ok in iowa. host: good morning, tracy. caller: thank-you. mr. gilbert, i beg to differ that scott walker is polarizing the state that we live in. i would argue that would be the leaders of the unions, especially the teachers' union, the fire union, the police union.

scott walker's reforms to expose corruption, the tax payer dollars to provide lavish benefits and health insurance through their own privately owned it union-owned insurance companies. you will never see that reported in your newspaper. you are totally against scott walker and pro-union. your newspaper is not fair and balanced. host: before we get a response, tell me a little bit about you? you have been watching throughout the caucuses and primaries so far. if the primary season extent, who would you be voting for? caller: for president? host: yes. caller: i will support whoever the nominee is. anyone but barack obama because

he is president of the union of the united states. guest: my newspaper actually endorsed scott walker. but she does bring up a good point. i do not think i said scott walker is the reason or certainly not the sole reason that wisconsin is polarized. he is a polarizing figure and barack obama is a polarizing figure. if you ask republicans and democrats what they think of these people, you get a gap in perception and attitudes when it comes to whether they approve or when they view them favorably. a gap that is much bigger than what we have seen in the past. we are a polarized country and a polarized stake before scott walker came along or barack obama. george w. bush was the most polarizing president we had in recent times.

that is all i mean by the word "polarizing." you can get into an interesting debate to what degree the state is further polarized as a result of scott walker and the battle over his policies. it has been bitter in a way that we have not seen in a long time. the 2004 election between george bush and john kerry, extremely polarizing and uncivil compared to our traditions. host: we have an item from npr with the headline -- what is the situation in wisconsin?

guest: they did pass a voter i.d. law. this has been a pretty vigorous debate in wisconsin partly because of what i mentioned before, having two outcomes in 2000 and 2004 deciding in the democrats' favor. you saw a groundswell among republicans, the perception that the election was tainted because it was so close, suspicions about voter fraud. there has been a debate back- and-forth about whether voter fraud really exists or not and whether these new laws would address voter fraud or a problem that does not exist. wisconsin is one of those places where that debate is the frontlines. host: our last call for craig gilbert from the "milwaukee

journal sentinel," california, ruby is on our line for democrats. caller: why are all of those people protesting the democratic candidate? the one that got bumped by that republican guy who happen to find enough votes somewhere, it was never investigated in. i guess the administration never looked into that. why is that? guest: she is referring to an interesting election we had in the spring in the middle of this debate over scott walker for a seat on our highest court. it was a massive turnout. the more liberal candidate who was the challenger looked like she won the election on election night, but then found there was a mistake and one of the republican counties counting the votes.

when the final tally came in, the votes were in favor of the republican incumbent justice. i do not think there was anything wrong with the results. but i think it is symptomatic of the suspicions you have on both sides when any time we have a close election. host: we have been talking to the washington bureau chief of the "milwaukee journal sentinel," craig gilbert. >> tomorrow, we could continue our coverage leading up to the south carolina primary with a preview of the gop candidates and the latest poll numbers. we will talk to a reporter for the south carolina newspaper

"the state." dam it will look at the role of independent voters -- and then we will look at the role of independent voters. david cole on the 10th anniversary of guantanamo bay. later today, at 5:30, we will have to marvel beach, south carolina, for a town hall meeting of undecided voters. it is gonna be hosted by south carolina's congressmen tim scott. his guest will be virginia gov. bob mcdonnell. that is at 5:30 today on c-span. you can pick it up on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> it is easy to follow the presidential candidate esther social media. go to campaign 2012 web site and

follow what the candidate are posting in real time. read the latest from political reporters. access the most recent video from the candidates at c- span.org/campaign2012. >> president obama hosted a forum at the white house with business leaders. they discussed bringing overseas jobs back to the u.s., which he talks about in his weekly address. the president is followed by north dakota senator john hoeven, who gives the republican address. he talks about a senate bill that would clear the way for construction of the keystone cop pipeline. -- keystone pipeline. >> i brought a few things with me for this week's video. a padlock, a pair of boots, at candle, and a pair of socks. we are not having a yard sale.

they are united by three words. made in america. they are manufactured by american workers in american factories and shipped to customers in here and around the world. the companies that make these products are part of a hopeful trend. they're bringing jobs back from overseas. you have heard of outsourcing. this is insourcing. this is exactly the kind of commitment to a country we need. this week, i invited executives from businesses to a forum at the white house. these are ceo who take pride in hiring people here in america. not just because it is the right thing to do for the bottom line. but also because it is the right thing to do for the workers, and for our communities, and four countries. i told them what are will tell any business leader. ask yourself what you can do to bring more jobs back to the

country that made your success possible. i will make sure you have a government that does everything in its power to will be succeed. that is why in the next few weeks, i will put forward new tax proposals that will reward companies to choose to do the right thing. we will eliminate tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas. it is why on friday, i called on congress to help me make government work better for you. we have a 21st century economy, but we have a government organized for the 20th-century. the needs of americans have changed, but our government has not. it has gotten even more complex. that is why i asked congress to reinstate the authority that past presidents have had to streamline the executive branch. it is the same authority that presidents have had for over 50

years. i will only use this for reforms that result in more efficiency, better service, and a leaner government. these changes will make it easier for small business owners to get loans and support they need to sell their products around the world. instead of forcing small business owners to navigate the six departments and agencies in the federal government, we will have one department. one place where entrepreneurs can go from the day they come up to an idea to the day they start building a warehouse to the day they're ready to ship their products overseas. in the meantime, we are creating a new website. business usa, it will serve as a one-stop shop for businesses, small and large, that want to start selling their stocks around the world. more small-business owners will see their hard work pay off. more companies will be able to hire new workers. we will be able to rebuild the economy that is not known for financial speculation, but for

making and selling products like these. products made in america. thank you. have a great weekend. >> earlier this year, the u.s. chamber of commerce released a study identifying 351 energy products that are stalled products that are stalled nationwide because of overregulation and a bureaucratic permitting process. according to the chamber, those delays are costing the american economy $1.10 trillion. they're costing us 2 million jobs every year. with nearly 40 million americans still out of work, and unemployment at over 8% for nearly three years, the president continues to believe that higher taxes and more government regulation is the right approach. i am center john hoeven from north dakota. i want to talk to about the keystone pipeline. its illustrates just what i mean. this new $7 billion pipeline,

the largest shovelled ready project in the country, would reduce our dependence on middle east oil, helped keep down the cost of energy, and create thousands of jobs for american workers at a time when our nation so greatly needs them. before i came to the u.s. senate, i was governor of north dakota for a decade. back home, we raised in comes and kept unemployment below 4%. the lowest rate in the country. today, it is still below straight in the nation. we created thousands of jobs for north dakota. we did not do it with temporary stimulus measures, but by empowering private sector, by building the kind of regulatory climate that encourages private investment and spurs economic growth. why is the president and is is ministration doing the opposite? why is he taking a course of

action that the bureaucratic barriers in the way of economic growth and jobs? let's pray that question in terms that mattered to every american. a week ago, newspapers across the country ran a story warning consumers that gasoline could rise to more than $4 a gallon this year. in the same week, we saw world markets reacted nervously to the standoff between the u.s. and iran. through its one-third of the world oil is now shipped. combine all of this with growing global demand for oil, especially in china, and we have a recipe for a higher energy prices. what will consumers say when what will consumers say when gasoline returns to $4 a gallon? what will they say when the cost of services and consumers' goods rise because the cost of energy is driving the prices? the president is saying note to the keystone pipeline. he is saying no to a project that will bring more than

700,000 barrel of oil a day from canada. he was assuring continued reliance on the middle east. that makes no sense. it is a matter of great concern for national security, a particular with what is going on in iran. last month, the u.s. senate passed apparel tax cut measure that includes an important provision that i introduced to clear the way for construction of the keystone pipeline. of the keystone pipeline. this pipeline will carry oil 100,000 barrels a day from the u.s. region in montana in my home state of north dakota. our legislation accomplishes three crucial things. it makes sure the decision to permit the project can be reached within 60 days. it addresses routing concerns by the state of nebraska. insurance the pipeline permit includes strong and pacific environmental protections. it is hard to imagine a project that is more in the national

interest in the interest of the american people. our bill and did not even pass when the u.s. state department said it would not allow sufficient time to evaluate the project. nothing can be further from the truth. our bill requires a decision by the president on whether the project is in the national interest within 60 days. it's no time limit whatsoever on the administration's ability to review and set the pipeline's route from nebraska. it was the only area of contention. in fact, secretary of state hillary clinton told me in a july letter that the department expected to announce its decision by the end of the year. in august, the state department issued the results of its final environmental review. if the keystone pipeline is not built, canadian oil will still be produced and transported. instead of coming to our refineries in the united states, instead of creating jobs for our

instead of creating jobs for our people, that oral will be sent to china. a number -- that oil will be sent to china. the keystone pipeline project is not on the president's agenda before next year's election, which is unfortunate. it is private sector projects like this and the hundreds of others cited by the u.s. chamber study that will get our nation working again. i of work towards approval of the keystone pipeline first as governor of north dakota, and now with my colleagues as a u.s. senator, because it is the kind of project that will grow our economy and create more jobs. that is the larger point. we must empower private investment and create sustainable jobs to lift up our country. the president and his administration need to join us in creating the kind of legal tax and regulatory environment that empowers private

investment. that is the approach that will grow our economy and get people back to work. that is the approach that will reduce our deficit and strengthen our nation. that is the approach that will ensure a brighter future for our children. thank you, and god bless. >> here is a quick look at some of the stops on the gop campaign trail today. most of the candidates in south carolina ahead of the state primary. mitt romney is going to be in the central south carolina to host a forum. jon huntsman is starting the day further south in charleston. newt gingrich is going to spend some time in the state capital for a town hall meeting. rick santorum is holding a volunteer rally in not pleasant. rick perry is campaigning near the coast in georgetown. one candidate is not joining the others today, ron paul. he is back, taking a few days

off the campaign trail. later today, supreme court's oral argument in fox television versus the ceo, dealing with rules on indecent language and nudity in broadcast. you can listen to those arguments starting at 6:00 on c- span radio at 90.1 in washington. or go to c-span.org. >> in this episode, we will take a look out rick perry surprising comment on climate change and the signs is behind research. >> there are a substantial number of science tests you had manipulated data. >> i rates different comments by politicians on a 124 scale. if you say something that is completely inaccurate, you were going to get it for pinocchios.

>> glenn kessler evaluate the truthfulness of political figures and others. >> if a politician says the same thing over and over again, even when it is untrue, they know they're saying something untrue. they're just going to say it anyway. >> sunday night at 8:00. >> the country with the most secure nuclear arsenal is australia. the united states ranking 13th and north korea in last place. the findings are from the nuclear material security index, a drug report by the nuclear threat and initiative and the economist intelligence unit. we will tear from the nuclear threat and it is co-chair. he presents the latest findings from the report at the national press club. this is a lull over an hour.

it takes a broad approach in defining nuclear material security. it is comprehensive, and today, it will be public. this is the publication. all of you will get copies. our distinguished panel will be going into some allies of its. we will take your questions and answers. we hope that the index will help spur debate, and dialogue, and deliberation.

beginning to define the long- term path toward a more in-depth comprehensive nuclear material security around the world. that will lead to a safer and more secure world. over the past year, our team has been working in close cooperation with the economist intelligence unit. you'll hear from him later. in addition to insure the project is -- has maintained an international type perspective during its entire analysis and survey, we have saw the guidance of the experts around the world. it includes an international panel of security experts. countries with and without materials, and from developed and developing nations. we tried to make the expert

panel representative of the world. we wanted to get experts. that was the number one requirement. why do we need the index? we must start with a very real threat of nuclear terrorism. today it is clear that the elements of a perfect storm are gathering. there is a large supply of plutonium and highly enriched uranium. that material and spreads across hundreds of sites, around 32 countries, and some of its is poorly secured. there is also greater know how today to build a bomb largely available. there are terrorist organizations determined to get the material and to build a weapon if they can. it is not a piece of cake and we do not want to pretend it is, but it is far from impossible. nuclear material security is

the number 1 defense we have to prevent nuclear terrorism. we know that to get weapons, a terrorist must have -- they will go where the material is. we have a global challenge and we are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe. it is pretty revealing, a comment made a couple of years ago by the former director- general of the international atomic energy agency. he noted, a large percentage of the materials reported as lost or stolen are never recovered. perhaps even more alarming, he added, "a large percentage of materials which are recovered to have not been previously reported as missing." if terrorist succeeded in blowing up a large cities summer

in the world, the result would be catastrophic. in the human toll of hundreds of thousands dead and injured, and disruptions to global commerce, and probable new limits on civil liberties worldwide. what can we do to prevent its. we're giving an important part of that answer today. we hope this index will help individual countries as well as the international community to set priorities and to determine what steps must be taken to better secure the materials that could be used to build a bomb. we start by taking a broad view of security. working with the independent group of international experts the i have alluded to, we identified key factors which fundamentally affect the state's nuclear material security conditions. then we assess the relative importance. these factors -- how much

weapons usable material does the state have? in how many locations? what kind of requirements for protection are in place? what international commitments related to material security has the state made? but as the ability of that state to fulfill these international commitments? corruption, governmental instability, undermine security commitments and practices. we do not expect every country where every experts to agree with all of the assessment that is in this index. we do not expect everyone to agree with our set of priorities. we welcome the debate on these essential questions. we also welcome constructive suggestions for improvements and

we all the knowledge that improvements can be made. here are some of the highlights of what we found. the good news -- we see clear signs of governments are becoming more engaged on this issue. there are a number of international initiatives and most of them are said towards -- there are initiatives that can be credited for galvanizing actions by governments around the globe. 19 countries plus taiwan's have completely eliminated their stocks of weapons usable material. i also want to give president obama and his team credit for elevating this issue to the heads of state level. to all the people do have been working hard to make these achievements possible. there will be a follow up meeting in south korea in march.

i want to start by noting that progress is being made count and many of you follow progress in the form of soviet union, where a remarkable amount of cooperative activity has taken place. other countries that have been helping in this effort for 20 years. we are concerned there is not a shared consensus about what security measures mattered most. the lack of shared priorities or undercuts the ability of governments to take urgent and effective action and even is a disincentive to governments taking action when there is no sharing of priorities. most importantly, to build a framework or assurance accountability and action, that is what we're calling for. government leaders should determine, and most determined, robust ways of doing the following.

create a global dialogue and build consensus on a new security framework for the protection of nuclear materials better weapons usable. ahold states accountable for their progress. build a practice of transparency that includes declarations and pure reviews. i want to make it clear that we understand that some information must be protected. specific security practices of individual sites. we do not going to that kind of depth, nor should we. there is a lot of information that should be shared with the public and other governments have to have the confidence. only by sharing information will that companies be possible. we think sharing information can help inspire actions by other countries. when we brief governments about the end?

some questions consistently come up. we have been asked, our governments cooperating with you? the answer is a qualified yes. in developing the index, we offer briefings to 32 countries. 28 took us up on it. more than half of those countries also validated the data, collected by the economist intelligence unit, to ensure that it was accurate. we have kept south korea informed as the host of the summit in march. we hope more governments will be engaged more fully in this process. why did you rank 144 countries that do not have weapons usable materials? even countries without weapons usable nuclear materials must avoid becoming safe havens,

staging grounds, or transit points for illicit nuclear activity. every country can and must do more to help protect these materials. do you expect or county index to help the nuclear summit in march in terms of their process and liberation? hopefully, yes. we hope the index will help shape the discussions at the march summit and help guide the international community and individual countries as they work to set of priorities beyond the summit. the summit is important, but the follow-through is even more important. this is up to the government of the world's. s. this index is not about congratulating some countries

and chastising others. instead, it should be used as a tool for initiating discussions, analysis, and debate, as well as beginning to build a consensus on the priorities and the imperatives. if the world is to succeed in preventing catastrophic nuclear terrorism, all countries can and must do more to strengthen the security around the world's most dangerous material. we believe this is a tool, a very powerful tool. the index challenges governments worldwide to respond to the threats by taking appropriate steps to strengthen security conditions. as citizens and as leaders, we need to ask ourselves this question -- if we had a catastrophic nuclear terrorist attack, whether it be in moscow or in new york or tel aviv, the

day after, what steps would we wish we had taken to prevent it? securing weapons usable nuclear material is the most critical step and we hope the index can make a significant contribution towards this end. the goal. i would like to thank the founders is supported this project. the carnegie corporation of new york. i must thank warren buffett, who makes our work possible. i would like to introduce -- to give the more background on how they established the index. we will give you more information about our approach and the index results. he will be followed by the senior director at nti.

we think all of you for your interest and we look forward to your questions. leo? >> thank you very much. i am with the economist intelligence unit. i want to take a moment to explain what we do and how we came to participate in the project. we are the research arm of the economist group. it is the publisher of the economist magazine. we are a sister organization to the magazine, but we do a much different kind of work. we are research based and we must work on behalf of governments, corporations or non-governmental organizations, mostly during public policy research and other economic projects. it feels like environmental science and security. -- in the field like environmental science and security.

we have done projects like this before the world bank, the gates foundation, and for quite a number of fortune 500 companies. nti approach does over a year ago and told us of their plans to put together a nuclear material security index and asked us if we would advise on the project. we were very happy to do that. one important point, this is washington and there are a lot of places to and studies in washington. more than a few of them have a certain bias to them. when we work on projects like this, we have three goals in mind. they are independent, transparent, and credible. if there any results that are established ahead of time, we do not participate. we were happy to find out thatnti want to gather the data

as objectively as we could. it is what we have been doing for the past year. this is an interesting project. we have built an index. it is not obvious that you would want to build an index to measure nuclear material security. we do that for a couple of reasons. this provides a framework for looking at this subject. you can look at anything any number of different ways. we tried to be as objective as possible. by building an index, looking at categories in a very structured way, it allows you to have a system you can repeat over time. we have done this for the first time, it should we want to do this again a year from now, two years from now, five years from now, we have a way of going about this. there is a structure, a level of organization, and a good element of objectivity. it makes it easy for countries to see where they have done well

and where they have not. we are attaching scores and ratings, so it is very easy for a country to see its progress over time. we have built these indices in the past and we have seen countries that do -- did not do well in a particular area change laws or regulations so that they were scored better a second time. that is another element of an index. how do you go about producing an index like this? especially on a topic like nuclear material security. this is a subject that almost by definition has a heavy element of secrecy. the senator pointed out that we do not want to go into areas of security at specific facilities. that would move against the whole goal of trying to provide security. at the same time, countries can be transparent. they can do things to reassure the international community that they're playing by the rules. in building an index, we gather

indicators. indicators are questions we try to answer in an organized fashion. we look at dozens of indicators. we ultimately chose about 18 of them. in order to make sure that we chose ones that are credible, we use their judgment, and the also assembled an international panel. people love worked in this field for decades. this panel came from a wide group of countries. this was not u.s.-based by any means. we have members from russia, china, indonesia, a number of other countries. this process was informed by people all around the world and it does have a strong international flavor to it. gathering the state is not easy. a lot of this data is generally less than transparent. a colleague of mine spent six months with a large team of researchers pouring through thousands of documents, looking

for whatever information we could find on how much nuclear materials these countries have. you cannot easily put in number, what kind of regulations to they have in place? sometimes the regulations are easy to find. often, they are impossible to find. because so much of this information is difficult to find, we give countries an opportunity to look at what we had gathered and to tell us whether they thought it was good or whether it was a bit off. in some cases, countries for quite generous with their time. they treat some of the findings we had. we had a source that said canada had less than 1,500 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. it was true. we checked with canada, we found out that it was less than 500. this was a way of making sure

that we had information that was as accurate as it could possibly be. finally, we put this into what we call a model. this is something that you can test. you can change assumptions in this model. for those of you have a tactical bench, if you are a stakeholder, this is something that you can use and play with. you can change assumptions. it has overall conclusions, but he does something that you can use as a drill down feature. we hope you'll find this interesting. we certainly founded a challenging project. we're very happy with the results. we're open for feedback. we hope we will do this again. each time we did these, they get a little bit better. i will turn it over to -- he will tell you a little bit about the project. >> thank you.

i would like to discuss very briefly the project's overall approach, and then to provide the index results themselves. let me begin by reiterating that despite progress, important jobs remain in our ability to set priorities and to measure progress on nuclear material security. to address this, we have developed the first ever comprehensive framework for nuclear material security. it does two things, provides a basis for dialogue and priorities and is a framework against which progress can be measured. let me quickly summarize the five categories, including some of the indicators, as well as why they're important. the first category includes the quantity and number of sites with weapons usabl