it was all over because it was going to be endless, endless money. coming up th 5% unemployment. we tried to control the damage. but that's where the element of surprise was, that was big. hopefully this time the bright light of scrutiny and press attention and the rest is on it, the public doesn't like it at all, it has -- they spent -- my understanding $50 million already in the republican presidential race and has had an impact. . >> we have two comedians who are educating a huge swath of young people about the intricacies of campaign finance. what do you think of them? >> i think it's great. i think it's really great. i am not sure -- they are humorous --ty want to make sure the message is clear.

this really makes a complete difference in our political system. you know, we tried over time -- and this is what i think the legacy of the democrats has to be when we win this next election and that is to have new politics, free -- they come in and 'tising -- new and free are the two best words. new politics, free of the special interest so that we're not talking about just big money piled into these campaigns. we have tried that over time to have checkoff systems so that the citizen participation in the funding of campaigns would work. we have it for the presidential. it's sort of at risk with the republicans having a bill to -- >> special interests in politics are -- did not just occur with republicans or with citizens united. >> well, we made progress with

mccain-fine gold which was a bipartisan legislation to reduce the -- mccain-feingold, which was a bipartisan legislation to reduce it. matters could no longer play their role, but what the court did is something so drastic, it rolled back progress for 100 years. so this is something quite different. so disclose what the money is. that goes a long way. reform the system, again, and then amend the constitution. that's a longer so that the citizens united decision cannot stand. and we'll see what the public appetite is to go that far. >> now, do you think the stuart attention -- you've certainly read about it. have you seen it? >> i know it quite well. yeah, i think that's really important and the point --

>> how is it important? >> well, because any -- most people don't -- you know, we sit in this room, we understand what's going on with this, that and the other thing. generally -- and the reason these pacts have succeeded is because most people don't know they're there and how they operate. they just see the result of it. so if they can pull back the shade and show the mechanics of what this is that anybody can give any endless money to say anything without any -- by the way, there's no regard for fact or truth or anything like that -- say anything they want about a candidate, it would deter you from running if you were thinking about doing such a thing if we were going to be at the mercy of. so, again, what i get the biggest response to as i was in these three cities this weekend. silicon valley on thursday. just all over. when you talk about disclose

and reform, people are very ready for it. >> ok. now just to cross a t on occupy. how do you feel about occupy d.c. saying they are going to occupy congress? >> i am a big believer in the first amendment and people having the opportunity -- >> you are not worried about chaos or -- >> i hope it will be done in a way that protects the rights and the people who are involved, but i do think that it's important to note what they have said and that is status quo is not acceptable. >> and you agree -- >> i would have had this directly to money and the role of politics. >> they think they can do that. you think that's a way that the movement could have durability or impact or -- >> my understanding -- the tea party was a wholly subsidiary

of the republican party. we don't have much connection with the occupy. in fact, they probably have some sentiments that overlap between the two, and one of the big concerns that people have, the tax code and its unfairness and economic policy that cal is iifies the un-- calcifies the unfairness, the disparity of ownership, of equity, of people having a real chance. and many people, i understand, consider the tax code a place where big money, special interest money weighs in repeatedly to the disadvantage of main street to the advantage of wall street. >> speaker, you were the highest ranking woman in american history. no one has been higher. in june i believe you'll be celebrated your 25th

anniversary in congress and you are going to get chocolate for it, i guess? >> i certainly hope so. >> and yet you have a president ahead of your party who could be running against congress. what do you make of that? >> i'm all for it. i am all for it. the president said he's going to -- my understanding is that the president -- he hasn't told me exactly that but i have seen he's going against the do-nothing congress and he really should. this is a congress that has done such a disservice to our country. you know, you have to give them credit. bless their hearts. they do what they believe, these republicans. they do what they believe. and they do not believe in government that has any role in clean water, food safety, public safety, public health, public education, medicare, medicaid. >> public education, george w. bush did the no child left behind act. >> he did that but he did not fund it. he did not fund it.

i'll never forget the first day that secretary paige came to our labor-hhs committee and it was mandate and money. we said, where is the request in the budget? he said, we don't need it. that was a setback. but president bush had the idea that no child left behind would be a good idea, part of the reason it hasn't succeeded because there was no resources to match the federal mandate. but my colleagues, you know what they told me? one of the reasons we didn't have to worry about defaulting on the government is there are other ways we could reduce the deficit. one was to shut down the department of education. now, this is a member of congress telling me this. >> who is this? >> i can't tell you. he was proud of it. i'll clue you in, but what he said what we should do to save money is the following -- shut

down the department of education, turning the building into 435 condominiums that we could all live there together and flash congressional pay and we -- slash congressional pay and we can go a long way to reducing the deficit. -- cafeteria. >> well, it would be -- well, whatever. but i heard on the debate last night a very vigorous shutting down of the department of education. >> so you watched -- >> i saw some of it. >> this was the fox news debate from myrtle beach, south carolina. what did you make of your opposition? >> well, here's what i saw, because i haven't had a chance to watch many of the debate. and i haven't taken the opportunity, frankly, but i did see -- in between commercials some of it. and what i saw -- >> wait, you were watching something else and you were -- >> yes. >> what were you watching? >> i don't even know. i had the tv on.

>> "alcatraz." >> "castle." i don't watch much. i am an espn fan. i -- sports. because it's numbers. less than anybody's opinion on anything, it's stats. what happened in the game. i am a big espn. that's where i go for my television distraction. but here's the thing. here's my conclusion. after last night, we had a contest without a winner. the so-called right wing of the republican party, described evangelical, and others are not supporting romney, at least not yet, because they don't think he's going to win. in other words, if they thought he was going to win they beat he could beat obama.

>> they don't think he'll win the nomination or in november? >> they don't believe he's going to win in november. why not compromise who we are and let's get ready for four years from now, four years from now when it's a clean slate, no incumbent and we can start to get ready building our -- >> that's interesting. you think republican -- the republican right is intentionally digging in, assuming a loss, staking upper ground for 2014? >> i know something about the dynamic of a presidential election and we see -- shall we say, dissatisfaction in all corners of parties. but in this case i think if they -- the argument, we should be for romney because he's going to win. i don't think they think he's going to win. because this is -- this president, when he gets out

there, makes his case, takes his message to the american people. this crowd that they have there is -- it's not exactly what you had acall the first string of the -- what you call the first string of the republican party. i think they can do better than that. >> who? >> i would never say. [laughter] >> all right. now -- >> it's hard to say, but nonetheless, you know, you got the third tier and the second tier is younger. if you know what i mean? so, anyway, here's the point just to bottom line it. if the far right thought romney could win they might be more enthusiastic about him but they don't share -- they question what he stands for and they don't think he's going to win, so what's the sell? i'm not sure he knows what he stands for and that makes it harder too because that doesn't instill confidence as to where he might be on some issues. >> ma'am leader, you -- madam

leader, you probably know governor romney -- >> i don't know him. does he know him? because i heard him say things last night which were really either uninformed or just plain wrong. for example, he said he would absolutely never negotiate with the taliban. question was, one of your senior foreign policy advisors says this is the opponent, this is who you negotiate with. and he say, absolutely positively not. not making any distinction among taliban who are ready to reconcile and reintegrate and what ron paul say, al qaeda or other dangerous taliban -- >> this is really interesting. one said this is going to be a big issue in the fall. she pointed out that govern hor romney took a shot at vice

president biden. in is an issue we will see a lot of it. so would mitt romney as nominee make it easier for democrats to take the house? >> almost -- >> the outlook. >> let me just say that on the house we do it one district at a time. it's not -- we want -- we feel very proud of having president obama at the top of the ticket fighting against a do-nothing congress. the president -- talk politics. are we allowed to do that here in this building? we have to be very careful in the capitol so i don't know if -- >> feel free. >> here's the thing. in states where we expect to do very well, california, illinois, new york, the president won't really be spending a great deal of resources for get out the vote and tv because he's going to win those sfates.

so we have to be on our -- those states. so we have to be on our own in the individual districts. new want to win the state statewide you go to the inner city. but our races are beyond the inner cities. we understand that dynamic. i was a state chair in california. i know if you want to win the state you do one thing. if you want to win the legislature you do the other. so in other words, we'll be big in those states. hopefully -- not hopefully, knowing that the president will have an inspirational message that works in those states. so we just have to get out -- we have great candidates. just get out the vote. texas on the other hand, he won't be spending money for the opposite reason. but we have great opportunity in texas. of course, we're waiting for the supreme court decision. we will have opportunity to pick up seats in texas. florida is the state where we have a three-way commonality of interest. we have the presidential, we have the senate, the united

states senate and we can pick up seats in florida. and those five states we come very close to picking up most of what we need the -- not all. we need more than that but come very close to what we need, the drive for 25. that is the -- takes us to the 218. i want 35. so we need more to get that done. so for us, this cast of characters, it's not about them. it's about president obama, how well he will do, our candidates, how they compare and contrast to the candidates they're running gebs. so i'm not going to be tempted into telling you who would really be the biggest winner for us on the republican side but we feel it's not about them. it's about us and it's about our president. >> all right.

now, what have you thought of mitt romney digging on the immigration issue? as you know, he said he would veto the dream act. how do you think that affects it? >> he said a number of things which do not seem consistent with the aura that they want to put out about somebody who will go in there and be fair-minded and bipartisan and that. i mean, to say that you would veto the dream act really tells you a lot about a person. >> what does that tell you? >> it tells you that you really do not have an understanding that the education of these young people is critical to not only their self-fulfillment but to the competitiveness of america. anyone who's ever been to a dream act event -- and i have been to many around the country -- know that these young people are more articulate on the

subject of our founders, our country and what america means. they are the living example of the american dream. part of what we are proposing this year is reigniting the american dream, building ladders of opportunity for all that want to play by the rules, work hard and take responsibility, put down ladders for them to come up and not just roll at the ladder and walk away. that would be the difference between us. but we have important work to do. and the dream act, we passed it in the house. i was very proud. just fell short in the senate. i almost wish that that's an overpromise on his part. he's not going to be president so -- he's not going to be president so i think it's indicative of a hard line that doesn't seem consistent with who he was as governor. >> a hard line, you say. >> that's a hard line, saying he'll veto the dream act.

>> how do i think that will affect republicans' performance against hispanics? >> don't think it will be helpful at all. i think it will be harmful. >> why? >> the hispanic community -- and, again, i was just in el paso and three places where i interact and california, of course, every day with the hispanic community. the education is a key issue to the hispanic community. it is -- it is the key in our whole society to making a difference in how people perform, how they succeed. if is -- i always say this. when these families come to america to make the future better for their families and the next generation, with that hope, with that determination, that optimism, they make

america more american because those are america's striving principles -- optimism, hope, determination to make the future better. it's what we were founded on with our predicate that each generation would take responsibility for the next. so when they come that reinvigorates those ideas but education is essential to it and the hispanic community knows that. and so for these children who came here, many of them as babies, some of them with no familiarity with the country they came from, not even speaking the language in many cases, the spanish language, doing well in school and the rest, they're here. they are here and we're saying we're not going to give them the opportunity to go to college and succeed. they are fabulously talented -- they are among them the most fabulously talented young

people. so i think what one thing we did on the immigration bill, the comprehensive immigration reform was to hold it together for a long time. we are not going forward unless we have the full package. dream act, legalization, secure our borders. >> we held it together but it didn't pass. >> no. we made a departure and said, ok, let's just go with the dream act. that was a departure because for a long time -- >> comprehensive didn't pass. >> no. >> today is back to school day for the house. job one is the payroll tax cut extension. madam leader, would you be for extending it for the full year if it were paid for by spending cuts rather than taxing the wealthy? >> i'm always open to seeing what offsets somebody may want to put forward, but it seems

hard to explain to someone why we have tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country which are not paid for. 350,000 of the wealthiest families in our country have tax cuts and they make over $1 million a year but we cannot touch one red cent of that money. but if we're going to have a tax cut for 160 million americans, we have to pay for it. we are going to have unemployment insurance which is part of the package that people have paid into, we have to pay for that. we haven't. we shouldn't have to do that. and so i would say of the three things, the payroll tax cut, the unemployment insurance and the sgir, the ability for seniors to say their doctor under medicare, that s.g.r.

could be paid for by overseas account. perhaps some of the other rest of it could be, but it would be hard to say -- >> that's the first time you've said that sdwhrrks no, i've been for oco paying for things. >> i think you're thinking for on pay-fors evolving, what do you think about pay-force going into -- pay-fors going into negotiations? >> we talked about pay-fors in the grand bargain of the supercommittee, and so we said if you have a big deal that's going to save -- cut the deficit by $4 trillion, then some of these cuts can be justified if you have growth. you have to have growth to get revenue. if you have growth and entrepreneurial package, how do we have growth to create jobs, what revenue can we bring in to

spur the growth but also to offset the deficit and the cuts , the spending cuts that would balance that all out? >> so -- >> well, you can't say we are not doing the big package any more but we still want to do these cuts over here when you really get nothing for it. >> so you're proposing another grand bargain, another larger package? >> well, i'll never give up on that. i'm never going to give up. that's not going to happen in these two weeks. i any we're in four days in january. >> you're expressing more openness to spending cuts in an you have in the past? >> to offsets. i think we have to say, ok. if you think -- and i don't think you should have to pay for it because you don't pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest people in america. why are we paying for these people? now, there's a reason for in a because if you -- if you offset

it, you're deterring some of the stimulative impact of these tax cuts. the tax cuts are important. u.i. and tax cuts are important because they are given -- they're received by people who need the money, will spend it immediately, inject demand into the economy and create jobs. there is a macroeconomic purpose to those tax cuts for 160 million people and for unemployment benefits for millions of americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and want to go back to work. so that, if you look at what the economists tell us, the unemployment insurance is one of the biggest drivers of job creation because people need that money to spend it immediately to make not only ends meet, to have any survival

and on the payroll tax cut, a similar impact. so to the extent that you start offsetting, you start weakening the macroeconomic impact of it. >> ok. >> now, however, in order to get that job done, if there's a way to look at some offsets which could be revenue, could be subsidies for big oil, subsidies for airplanes, could be some of knows kind of things that might be used for that, but it shouldn't come out of our investments in education and the rest which, again, grow s. nothing brings more money to the economy -- let me say to the treasury -- nothing brings more money to the treasury than the education of the american people. early childhood, k-12, higher

ed, postgrad, lifetime learning. nothing brings more money to the treasury than education. >> ok. housing is a huge issue in california. it could be a big issue in the presidential campaign. given all the efforts that they've tried to stabilize the housing market, do you think it's time to accelerate foreclosures, let the housing market reset? >> our members of california have written the president asking him to appoint -- well, i don't want to say replace demarco but he's been there for a while and they are not pleased with the pace of things there. what i'm seeing is some more -- i wouldn't say overly enthusiastically, but some more positive signs about how that is going. i've always been one who've said, reduce the principal, there are all kinds of ways we

could reduce the principal and the interest payments and to the extent we did that we would take some of the upside when these houses eventually came -- when the market came back. the federal government would have part of the upside and the owner would have part of the upside so that somebody else who was paying his or her mortgage on time and all the rest didn't say, i was penalized because i did what i did. >> some of these pending foreclosures are a cancer that needs to be cut out, right? >> well, it's a question of how they originated. some of these were subprime loans. some were people who just lost their jobs. had nothing to do with the subprime loan. and there was a -- an initiative to which exist to help people who've lost their jobs, haven't been able to make payments for like three months

or something like that, for them to stay in their homes. this is really going to be a tough-minded, cold-blooded analysis of all of this at some point. i've had people come to me and say, my banker has said to me even though i've said i'm recouped, i'm back to work, i have the money, i'll put it in the bank for three months ahead of time so you know i'm going to pay and the banks have said -- bank in this particular instance said, you're more valuable to me in foreclosure than you are in pay. >> who needs to do this cold-blooded analysis? >> i think we have a responsibility at the -- the government or the administration or the congress? >> government, congress. everyone with a hand in it because it's not -- that would be enough reason. it's not just about people staying in their homes and the

dignity of that. it's also about what this means to our economy and our economy is never going to be fully well until this happens. now, there are some who said let's let it hit rock bottom and as it comes back we'll recover. >> what should the administration or congress do to jump-start the housing market? >> well, i think we are a little bit -- i think something could have been done sooner similar to what i said before which is how do we keep people in their homes, how do we keep them paying what they can pay and take some of the downside of ownership as they stay in their homes? >> i think we lost a few people to a fire alarm. sue of "usa today." congratulations to your new gig. you've had a great run. i think sue has a question for the leader. >> madam leader, thank you for doing this i wanted to ask you about -- and you mentioned --

you referenced it about redistricting and it's impact on 2012. one of the things that has struck me and i know not all of the maps have been fully settled but when we look at it on a national level it does seem that this round of redistricting has continued a culture of what could be called incumbent protection, that a lot of the districts where incumbents have been drawn in a way that makes it easier for lawmakers to get re-elected or does not put them in -- for 25, the nature of redistricting has just created districts just by the math has not put competitive enough in play the number you need to be put in play to get the house back >> you never know what the consequences will be of redistricting. in california the republican party made a very, very expensive and concerted effort to put a commission on the ballot. commission to draw the lines.

i'm all for commissions drawing lines but they have to meet certain standards and i would hope that we could have a national bill that's had -- those standards and then states could take them on with characteristics of their own states. what happened in california -- and i never have ever feared an objective redistricting. you know, that's what we want is an objective redistricting and what happened in california is they spent a lot of money, they passed this redistricting commission which would not have been the redistricting commission you might think is the best in terms of voting rights act and that kind of thing and what will we do in california will probably pick up four seats because you -- if you do it objectively, and that's what -- same thing in texas. i don't know if you want me to go to the back and forth in

texas. the republicans thought the worst venue for preclearance which is the district court here in washington, d.c. and the justice department, they took it to that court. that court said, go back to -- the texas legislatively drawn maps. fake it back to the court in san antonio. san antonio drew the lines. probably gave us three or four seats. the supreme court decided they wanted to hear that case. they reached down to do the case. now in that case, what we're concerned about is do they -- why would the supreme court with all the important work that they have to do get involved in an interim redistricting? this is just a redistricting for this next election. it's not a redistricting for the 10 years. so this is something that was just -- the court in washington

said that the court in texas should draw the lines and go forward. so we're concerned that they may want to use that case to repeal title 2 and title 5 of the voting rights act. president -- secretary -- justice scalia is in charge of the texas region. they divide the country in nine sections and he's in charge of texas and decides -- not a fan of the voting rights act -- decided they should hear that. so we're concerned what it might do in terms of the lines but we're even more concerned about what it might do about title 2 and title 5 of the voting rights act. any of these places, again, if you can have objective -- i am all for having a commission -- a national -- i don't wrant to say a national commission. a legislation passed that has national standards for commissions that states would

use to take it out of the legislative process. legislative procession works for you if you have it or against you. state-determined commissions that meet national standards in terms of the voting rights act and the rest of that. >> sue davis. >> so we're going to do really well -- they said they were going to win 10 to 20 seats in redistricting, the republicans. with stiff competition, mind you. that was one of the most foolish statements that was made about redistricting. probably be a wash or we might win a couple seats. >> just to quickly follow combrup. it is six or seven, assuming democrats win the ones that you mentioned. when you look out at ohio, pennsylvania, tennessee, illinois, even, it's more a

culture of saving the seats that they have now, not necessarily growing the majority. it's hard to see -- pennsylvania is a good example of where they largely just protected the inkimbents that are there which the democrats should play more competitively then. >> well, illinois is going to be very positive for the democrats. that's one of the states you named. the republicans did a number -- you're correct -- in pennsylvania. they really did a number. they just sort of blocked. members will be running against each other in some cases maybe there of the same party. but we feel pretty good about california, new york which hasn't done their redistricting yet but just for what the makings are there. illinois, new york, california, texas, florida, arizona -- well, i don't want to show my whole hand here today. but we believe that the makings of the 25 are there except i

want 35. >> thank you, sue. you predicted here you'll retake the house. >> i said what i always say right now today we see a path to that victory 10 months from now. >> you must go further than that. >> no. what i've said to my colleagues -- i said, you are you a used to sports analogies. and i -- i grew up with five brothers. i'm into sports all the time. but when we come back, when we're fully back here in february it will be nine months until the election. if i'm thinking another way. nine months we have to have every one of those days very, very healthy days so that in nine months we give birth to this wonderful victory. they go -- ahhhh! we make every -- shall we say a

development period, we are going to make very good use to that. we outraised the republicans, we've outredistricting -- redistricted the republicans and this is the most important part. you need a candidate. >> the outraised part. you've done 400 events this cycle. amazing. what's the pitch you make to have people give money to house democrats as opposed to the senate or president or superpacts? >> well, we work very hard. we have a plan. as i said, we have the candidates. that's a big selling point. candidates . and we have -- in order to win 25 seats you have to play in about 50 seats and so we have to have them -- about 75 that we will reduce -- we'll see how they play. maybe all. about how they play and that comes down to 50, about 50 seats.

>> are you up to 75 now? >> we are up to 75 now. >> when does it narrow to the 50? >> maybe they all succeed and meet the standard. but here's the thing. we have of that 75 like 35 women. over 30 are women. we have a large number of hispanic candidates. it's really a very mixed group. there is a police chief in orlando. a police chief. she's a young woman that's been in the police department for 20 years and rising to the level of police chief. i know how to protect people. you have tammy duckworth who served our country in the military. you know her personal story. not today, not on my watch are they going to do this to the country. >> how optimistic are you about her? >> she'll be here. >> why are you so confident? >> very has a good district. it's still a primary there too.

she and another wonderful person are running, but i believe that tammy, sthea ran before. she has a national constituency. her story is a very compelling one. so we believe that she will be here. that's not to say that the other candidate might not -- will win that seat. whoever the nominee is in in a seat will win in a seat. >> tell us about speaker boehner in a we don't know? >> i haven't the faintest idea. tell me what you don't know and i'll tell you -- >> now, you can relate to him. a lot of party line votes, a number two who wants her job. you've seen in a movie. what advice would you have for him as he goes into this session? >> well, i would hope that -- he doesn't need my advice. i would hope they would act on behalf of the american people. that didn't happen last year. >> well, they wouldn't express it quite that way. particularly, how would you

play your cards differently? >> you have to give him some sympathy in this respect. when i became speaker i knew the members for a long time. i had helped each one of them win. we -- you know, relationships over time, and when we went to do our legislation it was like a finally woven fabric and everybody's thread was a strong, strong thread of what they brought to that. we built consensus and we wove our legislation so it was very strong and people stayed with us. you can do that if you know the priorities that people have, the particular nature of their districts, the courage that the members will have to do what they need to do, and so we all

know each other very well and we were able when the opportunity presented to us and when we won the house and when president obama won we knew what we were capable of. >> and how does that contrast with the house republicans? >> well, you know these people came in -- i don't know how well they know each other, the new ones, much less knew the other members, and so it's a different -- it's a different dynamic. i really do think that -- contrary to what you may think or know or anything like that, we always built from consensus. >> all right. >> it's harder to do if you don't know what the possibilities are because you just don't know the members. >> very little time. quick, say who you are? >> paul with cnn. building on the question, mr. boehner is in charge but not really in commarge. what are your observations about his ability to marshal

his party for legislative process? >> the speaker of the house has awesome power. power of setting the legislative agenda, the power of appointment to committees, the power of recognition. who will lead on any particular issue. it's a very special place in the legislative and the -- in the legislative process in the federal government. i -- again, far be it from me to give any republicans advice about how they have their dynamic but i would hope what we all come here to do -- i don't think anybody comes here to be a party regular. >> ok. i -- >> i think you come here to work together.

when i came here 25 years ago it wasn't this way. it wasn't until newt gingrich that it got to be so poisonous and then after that. but i think that -- i would be the last person on earth to be giving any advice to them except i -- the strength that we had from our -- and what we were able to accomplish which was very significant of which i am very proud was the more it related to the lives of the american people and the less it related to a philosophical, ideological agenda, the more successful we were in moving forth legislation. >> paul from cnn, did in a answer your question? >> kind of. speaker boehner had a hard time marshaling his party. anything for mr. bangor in particular rather than the philosophical that you just gave us. how does he keep his people in

line? >> you will have to ask him. the one thing he has to do is he is going to want to keep him in line. >> what do you mean by that? >> i don't -- we have' been -- we have been -- we're almost there on the default. let's start with the first c.r. they didn't have the votes. they negotiated a c.r. and then they didn't have the votes, and we had to provide the votes but we didn't have the input into the bill. that's one. then you go to the default. that was terrible. they will -- by and large, many of them openly said they didn't think it was -- they thought it was ok if we defaulted. they would take us to a place where we would be downgraded because of the uncertainty as to when we would pass legislation, to honor the full faith and credit of the united states of america. >> ok. >> if they want to do that or not. did he want to -- what did he want to do? did he just want to prolong it

or the discussion or did he want to find an agreement? i really don't know. >> ok. beth is about to give me the hook here. rapid round. a couple questions from david rogers. you are a historic figure, both as the first woman speaker and the legislation that you passed. what do you want now most besides the gavel? >> well, what i want to see is in a the health care reform bill be recognized for what it is. i think we are ironclad in terms of the law, but you never know what happens in court. so one of the reasons i'm here is -- the passage of that bill and now its safe keeping and transition into what -- so the public knows what it is in terms of the difference it makes in their lives no longer being a woman, being a pre-existing medical condition. millions of kids are already on their parents' policies until

they're 26 years old. children, young children for a while now have had -- could not be discriminated against because of a pre-existing medical condition. it's about innovation, it's about prevention. it's about a healthy america, not just health care for america. so that -- my focus is still on that. >> david also asked about unland spectrum for superwi-fi. are you surprised that the g.o.p. is against this and unwilling to guarantee some reserve kept unland for this purpose? -- unwilled for this purpose? >> nothing -- unlicensed for this purpose? >> nothing surprises me about the g.o.p. i think it's important in a we recognize the importance of unlicensed spectrum as we use the spectrum as the cash cow, the a.t.m. to pay for things. >> if the democrats could get a permanent doc fix for medicare, would you give more ground on

complare savings? are you resigned to just another patch? >> well, what do you -- if we could get a permanent fix which is what we've been for all along we could get a permanent fix with o.c.o. there have been some interest on the part of the republicans to have a piece of s.g.r. on o.c.o. we'd like to do it all, get it off the table, so there's no uncertainty as far as our seniors and their doctors as to the care they will receive. again, it would not relate to s.g.r. if there is some element that would come into the picture that would just justify doing something on medicare. but you can't say we're taking care of you with the doc. now we're going to hurt you some other place unless there's another upside to it. there's real concern in our caucus that both republicans have said they are going to put forth their budget for this

year, the ryan budget, which makes seniors pay $6,000 a year more for medicare. you know, why is that a good idea when we could get the money someplace else? >> ultimate question, an issue you're passionate about, democracy in china. you've always talked a lot about that on your visits. do you still think about the activists who were arrested, jailed in tiananmen square, is it regulated? >> much to their dismay. i have -- we had a little bit of a change with the chinese government. they decided we had been fighting for so long that we might as well get to know each other better. so they invited me for head of state visit to china a couple years ago -- a couple years ago and i told them i want to focus on climate issues and energy issues and that's a place we need to bork together -- work together but i am not going to ignore the human rights issues

and aspects of it. so this is -- i see them. many of the dissidents are in the u.s. i see them from time to time. >> there are a lot of people in jail, probably a lot? >> oh, yes, oh, yes. >> how do you -- >> some are being released. others are being arrested. some of them were in jail at the time tiananmen came out and now back in. the most excruciating pain that a tyrant can exact on some political prisoner is to say him or her, nobody remembers why you were here, they don't even care that you're here. and we promised the chinese dissidents as well as other dissidents throughout the world that we will always be beating the drumbeat so that their names will be read at rallies or on the floor of the house or the rest. last year i had one really

special privilege, was to be invited by the chinese dissident who won the nobel prize to be a part of the delegation which went with his -- his family couldn't even go but the delegation he chose to represent him in norway. as you may recall, it was an empty chair. the nobel prize sat on an empty chair. it was a very eloquent statement that went around the world that the chinese would not allow him to come and actually the nobel people said this further proves that we were right to give this nobel prize. >> how do you think what he's going to do? >> i think he's going to do great. he's made a big hit going over there. he was standing in line with a backpack on his back getting his coffee. i guess starbucks, the

equivalent of starbucks, that made a big hit. he is, you know, proud of his cultural heritage himself. but as we leave subject of human rights, let us focus on what's happening in syria. this is just stunning, 5,000 people probably already killed by the regime there. people were hopeful, we were all hopeful for a long time there had been some progress. i'm going back some years now. but clearly the regime is not knowing what's going on. >> state of the union, are there dates? you had a buddy system with republicans, right? >> and look at what a great year it produced. behalf laugh -- [laughter] i'd like frankly for a date when the conferees will meet to do the -- to do the --

>> who will be your buddy this time? >> i'm just back now. i'll see who my -- >> are you going to ask somebody? >> sure. we'll ask each other. it's a nice gesture. but the fact is -- let's not fool ourselves in saying we'll singing and giving tax breaks to 160 million people. >> you any it's silly? >> no. actually quite frankly when i came to congress i wondered why people sat on different sliles. when i became speaker i said can't we bring the speaker's podium -- in chamber closer together. why do we have to speak at different podiums? why can't we speak at each other's podiums? i'm all for this. i'd like to see some followthrough as well. >> as we say goodbye, you've done something that i am going to do and i rather fear and many people in this room are going to do. you switch from blackberry to

iphone. >> oh, i love it i love mife iphone. >> why? >> well, i just -- it's just magical. it is the -- [laughter] >> manifestation -- the manifestation of all of the choices that people have in life. 25 years ago i came to the congress -- some of you weren't even born -- and we had three networks and a newborn cnn, as my friend -- cnn was new. four plus one. the passage of the telecommunications act, that was the late 1980's. by the late 1990's, 500, 600 channels to choose from. on tv. and now right in your very own hand, not only that choice that you have, but a choice to receive your information in

real time in so many different ways, not waiting for the nightly news or anything, just to have it in real time, so information is king. it's everything. you know, it's so important. so i just love having my little pal there. but i -- let me tell you this one story in closing. [laughter] so my 3-year-old grandson says he's a chef. alexandra's little boy, she has 4 and 3. now they're 4 and 5 but this was thanksgiving before they changed and he said, i'm a chef. he wears a white hat, a robe, he cooks and this and that. on thanksgiving weekend i was cooking and i was on like the counter behind me and i said, ok, thomas, i sat it up. do you want to cook breakfast? he said, no. i said, well, you're the chef. and i turned around. he had picked up my iphone, now 3 years old, da-da, and was

watching "cars 2." i couldn't get "cars 2" on there in a million years but 3 years old and "cars 2." so imagine the difference this is making. think of all the choices we have and in some ways we are spoiled and other wrace it's right that we should have all of that access to information to make us better informed and that's what we want to do with the election is to make sure everybody knows where the money's coming from, who's supports whom so that the decisions that are made are made in the public interest, not in the special interest. >> well, i feel much better about my coming change. i want to thank our live stream audience, thank c-span for this, thank our cnn friends, congratulate them. thank our friends from bank of america for making this conversation possible. all of you for coming out.

beth lester and my "politico" colleague. madam leader. >> well, i thank all of you, too, for the opportunity. [applause] >> thank you, guys. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> and we are live in west

columbia, south carolina. the primaries are a few days away. newt gingrich is yet to ariff one of his seven events today. he had a couple earlier in florence, south carolina. he's scheduled to host a town hall meeting here in west columbia. we'll have it live for you. in the next couple of minutes the u.s. house is gaveling in what we expect to be a brief pro forma session. this is inside the town center as the audience waits. we understand, also, that newt gingrich is running just a bit late today with his seven events scheduled. again, we'll have this live for you. we'll break away for the house for a bit and have all of it live on c-span. earlier today in one of his two events in florence, south carolina, newt gingrich said he'd be "delighted" if rick santorum dropped out of the race. newt gingrich said, "i'd be delighted if he decided to endorse me."

he told the group of reporters after one of his events in florence "i respect rick's every right to run if he feels that's what he should do. from the standpoint of the conservative, a gingrich candidacy would guarantee victory on saturday." that's the reporting of "the wall street journal." meanwhile, following last night's debate hosted by fox, representative tim scott from south carolina, who has yet to endorse a candidate, was praising newt gingrich's performance in the debate yesterday. "the hill" writing this, daniel strouse reporting this saying "newt had a strong performance. he was on his game. when newt is good he's very good." . the comments of tim scott of south carolina, as reported by "the hill" this afternoon. again, the house coming in momentarily. south carolina primary on saturday. we're waiting live for newt gingrich and we expect to be able to get all of this for you. earlier today we covered a town hall meeting with rick perry and that happened mid morning

today. if you want to see that you can find that in our video library at c-span.org. meanwhile, president obama plans to accept the democratic nomination on the final day of the party convention coming up this sumner charlotte, north carolina. the associated press also writes that democrats also announced plans to shorten the convention from the traditional four days to three to make room to celebrate the carolinas, virginia and the south, the convention -- democratic convention opens on labor day at the charlotte motor speedway. we are going to break away here momentarily as the house comes in for its pro forma session and then back to west columbia. we hope newt will have arrived by then. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c., january 17, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable steve womack to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives.

the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray, loving god we give you thanks for giving us another day. at the beginning of this new day, we are grateful as individuals and as a nation for all the blessings we have been given. we ask your blessings upon the members of this people's house as they reconvene for the second session. may they anticipate the opportunities and difficulties that are before them and before so many americans with steadfast determination to work together towards solutions that will benefit their countrymen. grant that they be worthy of the responsibilities they have been given by their constituents and truly be the people you have called them to be. may the disagreement that has divided this assembly be put

aside and replaced by a spirit of respect and dignity. may your spirit, o god, be in all of our hearts and minds and encourage us to do the works of peace and justice now and always. may all that we do be done for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house stands in recess until approximately 6:30 p.m. today. do you think presidential

candidates should release their tax records? that is our question this morning. let me show you from tax history.org what they have to say about presidential tax returns.

you can see it there below president barack obama and his tax returns big -- dating back to 2000 and you have vice president joe biden and the 2008 presidential candidates tax returns along with his wife's tax returns and sarah palin who has also called a mitt romney to release his tax records. pat a republican minneapolis, should presidential candidates release their tax records and why? caller: i think they should release their tax returns because we, the people, need to find out where they make their money, how much tax is due they peg. i do not believe that mr. romney should not release his

taxes. i don't know why it is an issue. the reporters should consistently asked them since he talks about creating jobs, they should ask him to release his tax returns. everybody does that sort don't understand why he gets special treatment. host: he said he would like to wait as others have in the past until april. what do you think about that? caller: nobody has done that in the past. the candidates in the past have releases their taxes except for mr. runyan. he ran in 2007 and did not release his taxes. john mccain released his taxes. the guy has been running for office in 1994 and has never released his taxes. we don't know how much he paid. host: this is from politifax.

here is a sampling of recent elections -- taxes were an issue in 2008 and barack obama went first of march in 2008.

romney declined to release the return back in 2008 as did former arkansas governor mike huckabee and former new york mayor, rudy giuliani. who both had released tax returns during earlier runs for state and municipal office. to press, an independent in florida. do you think presidential candidates should release their tax records and why does it matter? caller: think they should because they take it upon themselves to run for high office to represent we, the people, and it is a way we get a chance to see exactly how they make -- how much taxes they are paying and it gives them a chance to show people how honest they are. if mitt romney doesn't want to show his taxes, america needs to look at that. host: as an independent, you

voted for republicans in the past? caller: in the past, i have voted for the candidate who i feel is fit for the job. host: ok, of who has that been in the past? caller: i voted for barack obama because he showed in the beginning that he was about the people and concerned about the welfare of the people and that is what i based my vote on. host: that is two calls in a row that says the issue of how much tax each candidate pays, why is that important? caller: they take it upon themselves to run for high office and represent the people and give the people a chance to see what they have been up to and how much they pay in taxes and give this a chance to see if they are honest or not. if they are willing to show their taxes, they are honest and if not, they must be hiding

something good host: this is the ruling on this issue -- let's hear from barbara, a democrat, cleveland, ohio. caller: i think absolutely mitt romney should release his tax records. he is holding back. he does not want us to see that. half of america pause median wage is $26,000 and they are paying 28% taxes and he is a problem paying around 15% or less. however, it will not as rigid it will not give us the whole picture because he has plenty of

money in all the banks around the world. host: how'd you know that? caller: because i read. get on your computer and find out. host: where have you read that? caller: i don't remember but within the last three days, i read it. host: warsaw, indiana, go ahead caller: i am definitely not impressed by the people who said they want to know how much everybody makes who is running for the presidency for it i watched the debate last night and honest to god, he said he is the, he will show as tax records. i will tell you the truth -- i think everybody must be envious of anyone who has money. i'm a poor man. i was a barber all my life and i am dying of lung cancer right now. i did not show anybody what i made. i did not think it was anybody's

business. when i die, they will find out anyway. it is just not something i think anybody has to s >> we are going to break away from this morning's washington journal with a he are minder you can watch it any time in the c-span library. we daycare you live to west colombia, south carolina, one of seven events today for newt gingrich. a town hall meeting that should be getting under way shortly. the condition date has been running a bit late and we expect that his campaign bouts will be coming into sight any moment now. one of seven events scheduled for newt gingrich today. the primary on saturday. this event one of many throughout the state following last night's debates.

>> you might find a seat if you don't mind.

i'm james matt, sheriff of lengington county, and on behalf of the next president of the united states, i want to take this opportunity to welcome you here this afternoon. also, i want to let you know that after last night and the performance that the speaker gave he wanted me to sign, although i was leaning in that direction, but after last night there is absolutely no doubt who can turn this country around and can bring us back to the great country that we are! he talks about getting jobs, keeping jobs, and only jobs. and i think he can be the architect of the american dream once again in america. so, ladies and gentlemen, it's my privilege to welcome you here and now to introduce our party chairman, brick bollen. >> thanks for coming out.

i appreciate it. some of you-all know me i'm rich bowlen, chairman of the party for another three weeks, i guess. i have been hesitant to get involved in the campaigns, but obviously this is a very important pivotal race. a. enfelt like it was incumbent on me to pick somebody and do what i can to hopefully change this country in the future by electing a good president. i tell you the reason i'm endorsing gyping beginning is because he gets things done. he has done what he set out to do. when he did the contract for america, he wanted to be speaker of the house, and there hadn't been a republican majority in 30 years at that point. somehow he thought i'm going to be speaker of the house. he did it. then he did the contract, he balanced the budget, he got welfare reform, and did this with clinton opposing him the whole way. i'm excited we have somebody who knows how to get things

done. how about that debate last night? that was amazing. one quick story, i want to tell you, i have been in a lot of debates in my life and this is the first time i ever been at one or seen one where there was a standing ovation by everybody in the house. and it was amazing. that was newt gingrich that did that. i'm just excited to endorse him. i believe we have a congressman here from arizona that is going to come and introduce the speaker. if you would, please welcome congressman franks from arizona. >> i can't gin to tell you what a -- begin to tell you what a precious honor it is for me to be here with you. i know each and every one of you understand that the eyes of history, the eyes of the world, the eyes of even maybe the founding fathers are on south carolina right now. i understand that you know that

we are in a destiny shaping year unlike perhaps any in my lifetime. barack obama, if he is re-elected, unfortunately, will see us perhaps lose our constitution because of supreme court positions he will put on that court, the justices he will put on that court. if he's re-elected we could see iran gain nuclear weapons and step into the shadow of nuclear trim. if he's reeektlected i'm afraidure pea -- re-elected i am a afraid european socialism will have an unbrakeable hold on this nation and we will be forever diminished. everything we love is at stake. i'm not here just to try to build you up and say how important it is, but it is the most important year that we have had in my lifetime for this nation, i believe. for those of you that saw the debate last night, you know that newt gingrich has a unique capability unlike anyone else in this race.

when the left posits questions that have intensic fallacies in them, he is able, he is gifted and able to turn that around and expose those fallacies and answer the question in a way that everyday americans understand is true and right. emerson said that what lies before us and what lies behind us are small matters compared to what lies within us. there is something in newt gingrich that gives him the capability to articulate the causes of america better than anyone else in this race. and if south carolina does the right thing, i truly believe this man will go on to be president of the united states and there will be hope for my children and yours. would you welcome the next president of the united states, newt gingrich.

>> i was just asking the sheriff the chief to how he gets re-elected. that's a long, remarkable career. we are thrilled to be here and have a chance to talk with you. sorry for being late. i appreciate my good friend, congressman trent franks, who has been a tremendous leader, particularly in the pro-life movement, who has been here helping us and carrying the message across the states. thank you again. rich, i want to thank you for helping us. this is their yard. thank you very much for your support and your friendship.

it means a lot. i do want to start by the way, the white house, the press secretary today, said that my comments last night about president obama being the best food stamp president in american history, he seemed to disagree with. i know the white house is a little isolated from reality, but i want to make a point about this. first of all, as a matter of just statistic at facts, president obama is the most effective person at putting people on food stamps in american history. that's just a fact. second, i suggested that the president's policies might have something to do this. it wasn't random bad luck. he said, well, he inherited the worst economy since the great depression. i think that's fair. ronald reagan inherited a terrible economy and began turning it around within about three hours.

ronald reagan understood that the trick was not to spend your whole first term blaming the past but to create the future. reagan ran for re-election with a slogan entitled leadership that is working. i think as of the present moment it will be relatively hard for president obama to suggest this is working. i was told by somebody that they were shifting from yes, we can, to why we couldn't as their slogan. but let me be very clear so the house can understand this. when the president adopts a stimulus package of hundreds of billions of dollars that nobody has read, and then discovers to his great surprise two years later as he himself put it that the shovel ready jobs weren't shovel ready, and the stimulus fails but leaves us $800 billion deeper in debt, at some point he has to take responsibility. that was his plan. his proposal, and it failed. when the president adopts an

anti-american energy policy against developing nerg, they claimed at one point they were lifting the moratorium in the gulf and replacing it with a permit system but they weren't issuing any permits. now, the american people aren't that dumb. this is an anti-american energy presidency. who goes off to brazil, congratulates the brazilians on developing oil offshore, tells them how glad he is we could guarantee $2 billion of equipment purchases, much of it from a george sorrows-packed company, and goes back on -- goes back on to say he wants america to become brazil's best customer. i thought he had it backwards. we do not send the president of the united states around the world to be a purchasing agent for foreigners. we send the president around the world to be a salesman for american goods and services.

so -- [applause] >> the president and press secretary ought to come down to charleston and look at the boeing plant they tried to close. every time you turn around this is an administration which is against american business, against american jobs, against american energy and then they seem surprised that they are putting people on food stamps. they think it's an accident of nature. this must have been the food stamp winter. that's baloney. his environmental protection agency is a job killing, energy killing institution, they currently looking at a proposal to -- that would raise the cost of gasoline by 25 cents a gallon. now, 2011 was the most expensive gasoline in american history on average. and the idea that your government would think about adding 25 cents a gallon more

just tells you how out of touch with reality they are. i would prefer to replace the e.p.a. with a brand new environmental solutions agency that had to use common sense and had to actually be aware of the economy as part of its decisionmaking process. [applause] >> now, the reason is i think this will be one of the three biggest issues of the fall campaign. i think you are going to have on the one hand a paycheck president and on the other hand a food stamp president. i worked with ronald reagan to develop supply-side economics in the late 1970's along with jack kemp and others. we ended up passing it into law in 1981. at the time it was very bold, people called it voodoo economics. it only had one great virtue, it worked. and -- remember? the fact is that -- very simple

model, cut taxes, cut regulations, develop american energy, and encourage the people who create jobs. it's the opposite of owe bam. reagan cut it's taxes, obama raised them. reagan liked american energy. obama is against american energy. reagan liked people who created jobs. obama believes in class warfare. what was the actual historic result? we created about 16 million new jobs in the reagan years. we then had two consecutive tax increases, one by republican, the other by a democrat. i fought both of them. and by 1994 the economy was flattening out. and we won the election. and the result was we went back to the reagan playbook.

we cut regulations. we reformed welfare fair. -- welfare. child poverty went down because parents are working. when you are going to school learning how to get a job. increasing their income. we cut spending. we cut taxes for the first time in 16 years, including the largest capital gains tax cut in history. the result was in four year's time we created 11 million new jobs. and unemployment dropped to 4.2%. and as a result of cutting spending and putting people to work to increase taxes, so we actually have more revenue without a tax increase, because more people worked. the result was we balanced the federal budget for four consecutive years and paid off $405 billion. the only time that you have seen that done in your lifetime. now, i'm prepared to run a campaign this fall between president obama as the best food stamp president and newt

gingrich as somebody who actually has twice participated in creating jobs. and i think we will be competitive in every neighborhood in america because i don't care what the ethnic back grouped, i don't care what the historic background, if you go in and say to parents would you rather your children were dependent on the government for food stamps or independent because they have a paycheck, overwhelmingly parents are going to pick get a paycheck and have a better future. [applause] >> the second great issue this fall is going to be a fundamental question of values. i believe and the declaration of independence, the constitution, and the federalist papers and the lessons of american history. president obama believes in radicalism, a lot of strange ideas he learned at clum columbia and harvard and a european socialist secular model. we are about as far apart as

you can get. i believe the founding fathers were correct when they wrote, we hold these truths to be self-evident. it's very important. they didn't say ideology, philosophy, ideas. they were trying to understand the truth by which humans govern themselves. and the truth about human nature. they said all men are created eke wool, which at the time they wrote it -- equal. which at the time they wrote it was a very radical idea. it was a time of kings and emperors and czars. they said, no, no. we are all equal. and then they said, we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. this is what american exceptionalism is all about. we are not exceptional because of you and me. we are just people. we are exceptional because we have inherited from the founding fathers this extraordinary construct that says, power comes from god to each one of you personally.

you are personally sovereign. [applause] if you are personally sovereign, what does that mean? they go on to say, the rights are unalienable. that means no judge, no bureaucrat, no politician can come between you and god. now, we know you are sovereign because our constitution begins, we, the people. doesn't say we the politicians or we the lawyers or we the bureaucrats. it says we the people. it's a contract. it says we are coming together to write a contract, which is why the current court system is such a mess. if you are interested in topic, if you go to my first game newt.org, there is a 54-page paper on rebalancing the judiciary and getting us back to a system where judges interpret the law they don't make the law. and it's a very important part of the reform we need to remind

judges that they in fact are part of the constitution they are not above the constitution. and that will they are co-equal with the other two branches. they are not above the other two branches. but this leads to a very simple core concept. in america you are always a citizen, you are never a subject. in america you loan power to the government and the government is supposed to serve you. in europe, sovereignty is in the government. and you are a subject in europe. and in europe the government dominates and you are supposed to obey. and the president and his friends have it exactly backwards. they would like us to become europeans. we are not going to. we are going to be americans. [applause] there's one more part. the deck lation a is a remarkable document. there is one more part that says we are endowed by our creator with certain

unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. life is very important and leads to the concept that we should define when life begins. i believe life begins at the very beginning and i believe that that means that the baby is in fact a person. and therefore it is worthy of being defended. so life begins at conception. the president, we don't know when he thinks life begins. we know as a state senator he voted to allow doctors to kill babies if they survived the abortion, but we don't know what his -- although he sort of implied at one point he dew point like himself because he didn't agree with what he was doing. but that would be a good example of debate. because another part i think is much more fun, and that is the right to pursue happiness. now, there are two parts to this. first of all happiness in the 18th century meant wisdom and virtue not hedonism and acquisition.

and so the founding fathers believed that a wise people could remain free but a foolish people would end up in a dictatorship. notice what they promise you. they don't promise you the right to happiness. they promise you the right to pursue. so there's no provision in the declaration of independence for happiness stamps for the underhappy. there is no provision for a federal department of happiness to assess whether or not we have achieved, and if you had told the founding fathers a politician was going to come into this room and say i'm going to take from the overly happy and i'm going to redistribute to the underly happy, they would have said to you, by what right does some politician think they have either the wisdom or the power to make decisions like that? now, one of the cores to pursuit of happiness, this is the conversation i had with juan williams last night, is about the concept that pursuit

implies, in my judgment, work. and i think we have to reassert that work is good. that it's ok to work. and that's why i suggested last night that we should reform unemployment compensation so that if you do need it, and you do sign up for it, during the period when you are unemployed, that you should also sign up for a business-led training program so you are learning a new skill and developing a greater capacity to be employed because the idea of paying somebody 99 weeks to do nothing is profoundly wrong. do you realize in 99 weeks you can earn an associate's degree? we are subsidizing people to sit around for 9 weeks. which just keeps -- 9 weeks which is keeping -- 99 weeks which is keeping the worst possible habits. if you talk about how to get the economy moving, part two is how do you rebuild the capacity

to develop being american? how do we teach being american? what does it mean to be american? how does a effect our relation with the united nations where i am totally aowe -- opposed to the small arms treaty which is an indirect liberal effort to take away the right to bear arms. timely, here's a question of national security that's very real. we have two very different threats. we have the rise of china and frankly dealing with china the primary problems are all here at home. if we adopt the right litigation reforms and right regulatory reforms, right tax reforms, we reform our school system, if we invest in science and technology, the chinese won't catch us in 100 years. we have to rebuild our manufacturing base. we have to do the right things to rebuild our military. if we do what we need to do, we don't have to worry about

china. and frake -- frankly if we fail to do what we need to do, it's pretty hard to ask them to be as dumb as we are. you can't go to them and say, look, we have decided to be incompetent so would you be equally incompetent? fixing the harbor in charleston, i want to develop energy offshore to have resources in part to rebuild the harbor so it is big enough for the new ships that are going to come through the panama canal when they modernize it in 2014. i'm told that the corps of engineers bureaucracy takes eight years to do the study. not to do it, to do the study. now, my reaction to that as a historian is to remind people that we fought all of the second world war in 44 months. think about this. from pearl harbor on december 7, 1941, to the surrender of japan in august, 1945, is three years and eight months.

now, how can it be that we could mobilize the defeat nazi germany, fascist italy and imperial in three years and eight months and it recently took 23 years to add a fifth runway to the atlanta airport. this is just self-imposed stupidity. and so i am committed to applying a model that they use at the boeing plant called modern management, replacing the 130-year-old service rules, and giving a government as agile, productive, and lean, as any major modern corporation. it was going to save us a ton of money. it's going to get our economy moving again. it is going to get to us a maimingor step towards balancing the budget and we can do all these things. i look forward to debating the president on creating jobs. creating -- debating the president on values. and debating the president on

national security. my last comment there is i have not seen any active weakness as great as his decision this week to cancel the exercise of israel. think about this -- [applause] the iranians spent the last two weeks aggressively practicing closing the straits of who are muth to threaten us, our response is to cancel an exercise so we are not provocative. we are sending the worst possible significant gnat to the dictatorship. -- signal to the dictatorship. the appeasement of this white house, timidity of this white house, the refusal to face reality of this white house is a genuine national security threat to the united states. that's something we need to debate out in the open and be directive of u how are we getting to get obama debate? he wants to hide behind commercials. i don't believe it's possible. if you'll help me on saturday

and you help me -- i believe if i win south carolina i will be the nominee. and if you will help me on saturday, and i become the nominee -- [applause] as your nominee in tampa, i will challenge the president to seven three-hour debates in the lincoln-douglass tradition with a timekeeper but no moderator. let me be clear. i will accept that the president can use a teleprompter. after all, if you had to defend obamacare, wouldn't you want a teleprompter? and i believe i can tell the truth without notes better than

he dissemble on a teleprompter. let me tell you how i'm going to get him to do it. when lincoln announced in 1858 he had been out of office for 10 years, douglas was the best known senator in the country and presumed to be the next president. lincoln said we have 105 days in the campaign let's debate every day. douglas said, i don't think so. lincoln recognizing the technology of his generation began to follow douglas. everywhere douglas went lincoln would speak 24 hours later. and after about three weeks douglas figured out all the press coverage was lincoln's repudiation of doug's speeches. he said i'll debate you. there are nine congressional districts. i'll debate you in the other seven. they met every single debate was picked up by virtually

every newspaper. and the next yearlingon had them publish as a book and they were a major step towards why he became the nominee. in tampa if the president has not yet accepted, i will announce that as of that night the white house will weekend forecast my scheduler. wherever the president shows, i will show up four hours later and i will answer his speech. in the age of 24-hour television and talk radio and websites and blogs, i suspect in two or three weeks they'll decide it will be so much less painful to just have the debate rather than have me literally follow him from town to town. he will look so foolish that i suspect he will agree. on the other hand, if he doesn't agree, i'll follow him all the way up to election day and the country will understand he can't defend his policies and he will look like a man who having gone to columbia and

harvard and been the best order of the democratic party was afraid to debate a teacher from west georgia college. that will reduce his prestige a great deal. thank you. [applause] let's take a couple questions here. we have two microphones. raise your hand. we'll keep finding people back and forth. >> mr. speaker, my name is ally, you mentioned that the founding fathers have said that we all created equal as men. he also -- you have unquestionable support for israel obviously. my question is on form polcy. you mentioned during the campaign that the palestinian people were inventive people. what do you suggest should happen to them? should they become israeli citizens or should they just -- what do you suggest should happen to them? the other question is, i know south carolina, i am from south

carolina, 60% evangelical christians, strong support for israel, my question is, the governor of the state is from indian heritage. his parents came from india. and we have a woman rap for president. would you as newt gingrich support a muslim american running for president? or would you endorse at one point in the future an american history that a muslim american could possibly be running for president given that we had a woman running for president in hillary clinton and jewish american in joe linerman. >> i think it would entirely depend if they give up shari'a. i am totally opposed to shari'a law. being accepted by any court in the united states. in fact i favor a federal law that preempts it and says shari'a law will not be used in any court in the united states. and this is a very fundamental question. people who are truly modern,

who have a friend in arizona who servings in the u.s. navy who is a medical doctor, who is muslim, he's a totally modern person trying to find ways to bring islam in. when you realize as was said last night that the rising islamization of turkey has been accompanied by a 1,400% increase in women being killed, when you look at the actual application of shari'a in places like iran, when you look at churches being burned in nigeria and egypt and the decline of christians in iraq from the million to about 500,000 today, i think it depends on the person. if they are a modern person integrated into the modern world and prepared to recognize all religions that's one thing. if they are the saudis who demand that we respect them while they refuse to allow either a jew or christian to worship in saudi arabia, that's something different. and i think we need a president who stands up, tells the truth, and rejects any kind of effort to impose on us a sense of

guilt because we believe in our religion and we are prepared to tell the truth and i am totally opposed to a state department meeting a week ago with the organization of islamic countries who are seeking to censor any comment about islam because i think it is a fundamental violation of our right of free speech as americans. but within that framework a truly modern person who happened to worship would not be a threat. a person who belonged any kind of belief in shari'a, any kind of effort to impose that on the rest of us, would be a mortal threat. the palestinian question is a good one. i think if hamas and if the p.l.a. would agree to recognize israel's right to exist and if they meant it, if they would hunt down and stop the terrorists and the bombings, i would favor peace with the palestinians. i would favor an independent state. i would favor an ability of them to become prosperous and live in safety and have the right of property rights. but in november 11 missiles were fired into israel. that's not a peace process.

that's war. i think this idea -- hamas' official position is the extinction of israel. you don't have norkations with somebody let's negotiate while i figure out how to wipe you out. i think we have tolerated for too long terrorist activities kiss guised as diplomatic be-- disguised as diplomatic behavior. i think the people should throw out the folks who want to destroy israel and we will accept israel's right to exist if israel will accept our right to be pros suss, and candidly that means giving up the right of return. the reason i talk about that there is no natural right of return. greeks have no right to return to turkey. east germans have no right to return to poland. poles have no right to turn to russia. we have all sorts of changes in territorial boundaries. the only place it's propped up is in israel and the purpose is to destroy israel. fine, that's over. there is no right of return. now let's negotiate the future.

[applause] . >> mr. speaker, my name's rick from falls church, virginia. question for you, those of us who are retired enjoy perhaps 4/10, .5% of 1% on our sampingse today. about five years ago we were getting 4% to 5% federally insured. given these circumstances would you reappoint ben bernanke as chairman of the federal reserve. thank you. >> i said i would ask him to resign. if he didn't resign i would ask the congress to fire him the first week of the presidency. i think he's not a good -- was not a good federal reserve chairman. i also have announced i would appoint a commission to look into gold and look into hard money because the truth is we ought to have -- the dollar you save today ought to be worth ale toar 30 years from now. we have had a very long 350ered

of -- period of inflation which has eroded 9 -- the value of our money. the founding fathers created the constitution in part to get to sound money. i think we should get back to sound money. what you have today is pumping trillions of dollars of paper into the world of -- economy. there is a report out this morning the fed -- i think it's the "wall street journal" article, the fed has been covertly trying to help prop up the europe. the united states has no reason to prop up the germans while the germans try to prop up the greeks. if the germans want the euroto succeed, let them pay for it. we have no reason to prop up germany which is a leading exporting country in the world. this game that they have been playing where they have propped up their export market by loaning the money they can't pay back. now they want to tie us into their problems. i would say we should not do that. we should seal off our banks and spend the money protecting our financial institutions and

tell the europeans they have to solve their own problem. >> mr. speaker. i'm mike from columbia. and i have a question for you. i think everyone here can agree our number one goal is to make sure we have four more years of obama. the way this campaign has been going lately, how can you repair whatever the candidate may be, to where he can be a viable candidate against obama when we come into the fall? >> i would say just the opposite. if we can't come nominate a candidate tough enough to go up against obama, we have a huge problem. nothing that's been done in the campaign so far -- the negative ads against me, negative ads against romney, various things that ron paul does randomly, none of those things, none of those things are tough. compared to what's coming. you have a chicago machine that's going to have a billion dollars. this is part of why they filed

the lawsuit against south carolina over honest voting. you only had 630-some dead people vote last year. you were way below quota. if you are the chicago machine, you are going oh, my god, what if they only allowed living american citizens to vote, how would we ever win? you ought to expect a chicago machine style campaign this fall. the answer is to nominate somebody tough enough they can stand toe to toe with obama and defeat him him. that's the reason i believe it's very important -- if you look at the 15 debates we have had. and you ask yourself, all right. it's october. who do you want on the podium debating obama? if you ask yourself, do you want somebody who is a moderate, close enough to obama -- are you going to distinguish romney care to obamacare. that debate will be clever. you want somebody like this like reagan was with carter. you want a real conservative against a real radical so most of his billion dollars falls in

the middle harmlessly. when it's done you are still for paychecks and he's still for food stamps and people get it. you're still for national security he's still for weakness. you are stull for american exceptionalism, he's for european socialism. that's why i believe the only way to defeat obama is to nominate an articulate conservative who has the courage to be tough enough to go nose to nose with him. [applause] >> hey, newt, thanks for being here. that was a great speech. thanks a lot. i'm having a hard time deciding who to vote for in the primary. i really -- >> i can help. >> i really want to vote for you. i'm going to say this -- -- i genuinely want to clear this

up. i have seen your ads and in some of the ads you talk about how many jobs you created as speaker back in 1994, etc. right? but we all know and i have heard you say before, that the government doesn't create jobs. the private sector does. so it kind of sticks in me a little bit, i am a not agitated about t. i want to clear it up. it sounds like something that the democrats would say and it doesn't sound like something you would normally say. help me with that. >> it's a question of creating conditions. the founding fathers created the conditions for the united states to become the wealthiest country in the world. other countries don't do that. in 1960 ghana and south korea had the same per capita income. today because they aconted -- adopted the r50eu9 rules, mostly american, south korea is

the 11th or 12th wealthiest country in the world. the rules matter. detroit has been terribly badly governed by politicians for the last 50 years. and it's collapsed. went from number one in per capita income, and a million eight00,000 people, it's about 68th in per capita income. over half the housing is empty. it's a true human tragedy caused by bad government. so when you have bad government, when you have an obama quality government, when you have the dodd frank bill destroying small banks, a president blocking you from developing oil and gas, the only reason north dakota has 3.2% unemployment and seven straight cuts in their state taxes is because the oil they found was on private land and the federal government couldn't stop them. otherwise north dakota wouldn't have developed, either. by the way, they discovered that they have 25 times, not 25%, 25 times as much oil as

the u.s. geological survey thought they had. you are going to have the same thing happen offshore. all of our current survey information is almost 30 years old. we have no modern service. i'm suggesting to you that government -- somebody who wants to create jobs can cut taxes in the right way. i have zero capital gains tax in my proposal. bring in huge amounts of money. we have 100% expensing so you can write off all new equipment in one year. so we can have the most modern workers in the world with the most modern creative equipment. we have a 12.5% corporate tax rate so we bring about $700 billion back home. all of these things are really very, very helpful. we abolish the death tax so that family-owned businesses don't have to spend a lot of time worrying about the federal government. they focus on job creation, and growing, and being effective and not fear you have to go to the undertaker. we have a 15% optional flat tax

which means this is a hong kong model that steve forbes wrote about. if you want to keep your current tax code with current mortgage deduction, all the various tax breaks, fine. you will have all the paperwork. on the other hand, if you just like to fill in one page, i earned this amount, i have this number of dependents, 15% of what's left, you can do your taxes on one page. you choose which is better for you. i think that gives us a real sense of the right way to approach this. one last question. >> i'm john from columbia, south carolina. the mainstream media would lead us to believe that the american public wants the folks in washington to compromise. get something done. given the light that the environment in washington is socialist vs. free enterprise, how do you compromise with the socialists without accepting socialism? >> i think they have exactly the wrong formula. i made some controversy the friday after i became speaker

because i had -- gave a speech for the heritage foundation i said, i will cooperate but not compromise. so when reagan was elected, tip o'neill was speaker of the house. we had to get 1/3 of the democrats to vote for the reagan tax cuts. or woo cont -- we couldn't pass it. bill clinton was in the white house. i had to get his signature or we couldn't pass it. we passed welfare reform twice and he vetoed it. third time he siped it. you have to to negotiate. the key is to figure out what is it that matters and not yield an inch? and what is it that doesn't matter? is there something the other guy wants that would lead them to work with you on the thing you want? so it requires a great deal of creativity and a lot of tenacity and hard work. but i think if you look at the track record i had both in the 1980's with reagan and the 1990's with clinton, you can get it to work. i'm appalled how bad obama is in trying to get washington to work. i'm not exempting the republicans. i'm saying this guy has no

concept of how to negotiate. he has no concept of how to try to bring people together. you either do it his way or he makes another speech. he has no concept of sitting down. the webb-warner bill, two democrats from virginia on developing oil and gas offshore, republicans in the house have said this for four months, republicans in the house ought to pass it. and if the republicans in the house would pass it, it would go to the senate. how does hair require reid, the democratic leader, stop a bill written by two of his members? now you have a bipartisan bill creating energy, creating jobs, creating revenue. senate would pass it at that point. it would go to the president as a bipartisan bill. now, in this economy if you have a bill that increases american energy to lower the cost of gasoline, increases american jobs to lower unemployment, increases revenue to the federal and state government, even obama would have hard time vetoing it. so you have to be created and

you have to be persistent, with you you can get the system to work if you have a vision of where you are going and willing to work cooperatively. we'd love to meet folks. we'll come down here. if you people would come this way. [applause] i do want to remind you i want every vote here. i want you to call, tweet, facebook all of your friends between now and saturday. thank you.

>> thank you for coming. you got my vote, sir. >> thank you. >> nice to meet you. good luck. >> thank you very much. >> good luck. >> thank you, sir. >> pleasure to meet you after all these years. >> hi, nice to meet you, sir. >> thank you very much. >> hello. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> need your help. thank you very, very much. >> good luck, sir. >> thank you very, very much. thank you very much.

>> make us proud. >> you will get my vote. >> thank you. >> thank you very, very much. >> yes, sir. >> look forward to you on saturday. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> hi. >> good luck saturday. >> thank you. >> welcome. >> thank you for your help. >> wonderful words come from your mouth. >> thank you. >> good to meet you, sir. >> i want you to be president. >> well, i need your help. >> you have solutions. >> thank you. >> i wish you luck. >> newt, good seeing you again. >> you the man of kicking the jack as s's ass. >> thank you. >> i love your speech.

>> thank you very much. >> and you, i just decided to vote today. i had not made my mind up. but after last night, god bless you. >> well, thank you. >> look forward to working for you. >> thank you. >> pleasure meeting you. >> i'm definitely going to be voting for you. >> thank you. >> hi, there. >> hello. >> what's your name? >> jessica. >> thank you. >> we are in support of you. thank you. and we have a new voter. >> good, i need your vote. >> i'm 18. >> vote on saturday? >> yes. i'm voting for you because i love my grandchildren, ok. >> exactly a good answer. >> he's the county treasurer. i'm the county officer. >> didn't we meet? >> i'm good. could you sign this for my dad, please. thank you. >> since we're almost done. >> thank you very much.

>> need your help. >> newt gingrich, nice to meet you. my husband says you're a very smart man. >> tell him i need his vote saturday. >> need your vote saturday. thank you for coming. >> very nice to meet you. good to see you. >> we need your vote on saturday. >> thank you. >> thank you very, very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> leading up to saturday's south carolina primary, c-span's "road to the white house" coverage takes you live to the candidate events all this week. >> we need to eliminate these entitlement programs. we need to cap them, cut them, cap them. send them back to the states, remove the federal oversight and let the states have the flexibility to deliver these programs. >> we have brought to the forefront. others have tokenly talked about it. they get in office and they do nothing about it but right now it is this liberty movement which is seen as a patriotic movement, an swrid liberty movement that is saying to the country and to the world, we had enough of sending our kids and our money around the world to be the policemen. it's the time to bring them home. >> candidates get their message out meeting voters. >> shake your hand. we're so happy. >> thank you.

>> you have my vote. >> thank you so much. >> the endorsements in texas? >> we feel very good about that. we feel the conservatives are coalescing around our campaign. that will be good for us not just in south carolina but going forward. >> find more video from the campaign trail at c-span.org/campaign2012. the house returns today from its holiday break as a washington post/abc news poll shows that 84% of americans disapprove of the job congress is doing. the house today starts the second session of the 112th congress and that includes electing a new sergeant at arms. that takes place at 6:30 p.m. eastern. we'll have live tomorrow. tomorrow in the house a vote on president obama's request to raise the debt limit by $1.2 trillion. meanwhile, the senate returns to session next week. tomorrow on "washington journal" "time magazine/white

house correspondent talks about the superparks and their role on the presidential campaign. his article is linked on our website at c-span.org. mr. shrerer will take your phones and comments. this morning on "washington journal" -- bill kristol joined us on the south carolina primary. said it would be better if ron paul leaves the republican party. this is from today. it's about 45 minutes. host: winners or losings from

last night? guest: it was a good debate. these debates have been getting better as the fewer debaters there are. if you have nine people on the stage it's not a debate. it's a mob. mad press conference. who can follow nine people having 30 to 60 seconds to answer? last night there were five people on stage, a little bit longer to answer, 90 seconds. there were some good exchanges between the candidates. i think rick perry will probably not do well in south carolina and probably will get out. we'll be down to four candidates. that's why this race should go on for a while. these debates people are mocking and people have said we are tired from them. it's good to learn from them. i would like to see some debates after south carolina, before florida. i guess there will be two of them. there will be likely four candidates. it wouldn't be mad if these debates go on into february and march because you learn new things. new issues come up. you -- there is no rush to

nominate someone, you know. host: we can talk about south carolina and beyond. beyond south carolina here in just a minute. last night's debate, do you think it has an impact on saturday? guest: yes. if you watch this debate as a fair-minded person. i'm not sure how fair-minded -- one can't judge fair minded except his own self. i don't like ron paul. i think rick perry was a marginal figure. how badly he's done in iowa and new hampshire and how badly he's doing in the polls. if you looked at romney, santorum and gingrich, the three leading candidates, i thought they were evenly matched. if anything i thought gingrich and santorum rather outperformed romney. i think the romney supporters who want to say, oh, come on, we've already had one caucus and one primary. we are going to have a second primary. isn't three states enough? who cares what the other 47 states? let's get this done.

let's everyone get out of the race. let's consolidate here before february 1. i think that argument loses some credibility. really? don't we get to see rick santorum and newt gingrich see their case a little longer? i think the attempt to give romney the mantle of inevidentibility took a little bit of a hit last night. host: do you think think newt gingrich did last night? guest: he did good at these debates. he questions liberals. the moderator worked that out before time. ron asked a good question. newt gave a good answer. that was one of the high points in the debate. newt generally was strong. i thought santorum was strong. you know what's interesting about santorum, he defended a position, i gets tweets during the debates, it would be wise of rick santorum talking about former felons having a vofmente it was one vote he cast years ago.

and the -- it's probably not that popular position among the republican primary voters it is once you served your parole you should vote in federal elections. that's what he voted for several years ago. the reason it came up is the romney superpact has been attacking him meaning that santorum was in favor of giving felons a vote. it was an unfair attack on him. what's impressive is he held his ground and held the position. it's not probably the popular position. mitt romney suddenly turns out to be a superhard liner on former felons. they should never have the vote. it wasn't the position i to my knowledge he ever argued for as governor of massachusetts. massachusetts does -- much more liberal than santorum. i looked up virginia. virginia which is a pretty law and order state, former felons can petition the governor with having the vote back if they were good on probation.

it was revealing moment. i thought santorum showed cleverness in the debate of romney back and forth and a certain principle. host: let me show mitt romney between the moderator, co-moderator and are the speaker. >> a black church in south carolina where a woman asked you why you referred to president obama as the food stamp president. it sounds as if you're seeking to belittle people. >> well -- first of all, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by barack obama than any president in american history.

[applause] now, i know among the politically correct you are not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable. second, you were the one who earlier raised the key point. does the area that ought to be i-73 was called by barack obama a corridor of shame because of unemployment, has it improved in three years? no. they haven't built the roads, they haven't helped the people. they haven't done anything. host: bill kristol, just on his performance last night. here is an email from a viewer -- guest: look, i myself are uncertain who will vote for or

will vote for in the republican conference in virginia. i'm opened to the arguments for and against romney, for and against gingrich. i am not open on the ron paul issue. i just don't gret with him on -- agree with him on fundamental issues. perry will get out. gingrich is a fantastic debator. his approval and disapproval rating in two big rolls was 58 unfavorable. almost identical. it was almost minus 30. ronald reagan never had numbers like that you have to ask yourself -- you may love newt gingrich and i worked for newt gingrich for 25 years and i admire newt gingrich and i like newt gingrich. and i think he'd probably be a pretty good president. but you have to ask yourself in a hard-headed way, can he do so well in the campaign that would overcome such a gap? let me give you a sense of the other numbers. obama -- president obama is about a plus two, plus three

favorable over unfavorable. it's like 49, 47. romney is plus four. slightly more favorable than president obama. santorum, who is less well-known is minus four. they are all within the range. you can imagine a campaign of obama doing better than romney. santorum doing better than obama. plus four. those numbers change. obama is plus two or three. gingrich is minus 29 or 30 can you overcome that? for me at least honestly if i were choosing as a conservative between santorum and romney and gingrich i would have real doubts about whether gingrich could rin win whereas santorum, without gingrich's history, maybe a less flashy debater than newt, without of his history, i think santorum would be better. host: talking about last night's debate in the g.o.p. presidential field. democrats dial 202-737-0002.

republicans, 202-737-0002. and independents, indsinds. we have a fourth line set aside for south carolina residents, 202--- phil is first in florida. go ahead, phil. caller: hi. thank you, gretta. i am concerned about how the guest is just dismissing ron paul because ron paul is very much against mr. kristol's agenda of these ongoing wars. mr. kristol's very involved with the project for the new american century, and -- which advocated this whole war -- you know, laid out the plan for this whole war on terror which included iran and syria and i'm a veteran, one of my brothers did two tours in iraq, and, you know, i'm sick and tired of

guys like this -- if i'm not mistaken, mr. kristol was born in 1953 which made him 18 in 1971, two years before the draft was ended, and he could have gone from tired of these fellows -- i want to encourage all the listeners who can hear my voice to watch the documentary "the new american century." host: ok, phil, i am going to leave it there and for your response from bill kristol. guest: i have a fundamental disagreement from ron paul's policy. i couldn't vote for him. i think he's wrong in his analysis. i respect people who served in war and war is a terrible thing but you got -- i don't know if your position is we shouldn't have gone to afghanistan or perhaps shouldn't have gone to iraq. ron paul voted to authorize the war on terror. voted to authorize the war on afghanistan.

he speaks as if it was all a terrible misfake, 10 years we have been fighting there. it's unclear if he's adjusting his view now. his true view is we invited 9/11. he's even hung out with and -- hung out with, really, praised people that 9/11 was kind of inside setup job. so let's have a serious debate on foreign policy. that's fine. let's not say that some of us just want to fight endless wars which is the way ron paul tends to put it. but i'm happy -- god knows i've debated people with ron paul's views. i'd love to debate ron paul on foreign policy. host: obama tied with romney and paul in november showdowns. what do you make of that? guest: i think -- when a president runs for re-election, most of the vote is about him. do you approve of him or disapprove of him? the candidates don't tend to match up that differently when running against president obama. i do think in the real race, however, when voters get to

know the opponent better and when they really have to make a fundamental decision it makes a difference at the margin. ronald reagan was even with jimmy carter going in the last couple weeks of the race. a huge number of questions have been raised, primarily vote and by the media and he was able to reassure the public that he was the right person with the job and ended up beating carter even handedly. you can't assume obama could be weak. the economy will be weak. any republican could win. i think electibility matters. i think -- electibility can change over the course of the next eight, nine, 10 months. you can't take a snapshot poll now and says who seems to be doing better. that's why these debates are interesting. they are debates. you get to see these guys handle themselves against some challenges. president obama will be capable of challenging them pretty effectively in the general election debates. there will be hundreds of millions of dollars of ads run against them. so letting this primary process going on some so we learn more

about the candidates i think is important thing. host: here is "the washington post" this morning with their poll. who do you think will win the g.o.p. nomination? and they asked those republicans and g.o.p. leading independents in 72% said mitt romney. what do you think that says to the other candidates? guest: i'd probably answer that way, too. romney certainly the favorite. shows most of the primary electorates reading the newspapers and sees that romney is tied in iowa and won new hampshire. may well win south carolina and has the most money and best organization. he's run before. republicans have a real history of nominating someone who's run before. they have time and time again, bush in 1988 after he lost to reagan in 1980. dole np 1996 after he lost do bush in 1988. mccain in 2008 after he lost to bush in 2000. i was skeptical. i thought it was a new era in american politics. the tea party has fundamentally changed thing. the election of president obama changed things.

the establishment tended to win for the last 10, 25 years. president obama, first-term senator from illinois wins over hillary clinton. it's a model for how the republican primary might go. if santorum were to upset gingrich and romney i would say that is somewhat of an analogous. he is more experienced than president obama. first it looks like republicans might do what they've traditionally done, nominate someone who has run before and has some experience running. it can be a good thing. you run before. you learn how to do it. you introduce yourself to the voters earlier. it can also not be a great thing because if you nominate someone who lost last time, as republicans did with bob dole and john mccain in 1996 and 2008 who were both very fine men, impressive men, real impressive careers, they didn't turn out to be great general election candidates. host: let's hear from ed. he's in south carolina. conaway. an independent.

go ahead, ed. caller: good morning, miss. i would really like to thank you for c-span because you are about the only people who tell the truth. mr. bill, you are very good at distorting the facts. i was at the event last night myself. ron paul did excellent. in fact, he toiled guys up. he did stumble a little bit because they got four against one. that's ok. we'll still win. a while ago you said there will be meeting certain places and you didn't mention ron paul. ron paul will be in columbia. he's going to be there at 10:00 a.m. he's going to be at spartanburg . north spartan. i'd like to add that all the other papers and the media does not want to cover ron paul. they did admit they had done him wrong and it's on the computer if you want to look it

up. host: ok, ed. we'll go to michael who is a democrat in -- guest: i think ron paul should be covered. we covered him in "the weekly standard." they doffered what ron paul has been saying. some of his conspiracy theories. on the new republic website. he'll promote a competitor here. the new republic website which is tnr.com, has posted links to a lot of the letters that ron fall wrote when he was out of office in the late 1980's, early 1990's. it was ron paul newsletter. he spoke about them at the time. he said he didn't write them and didn't read all of them. they went out as the ron paul newsletter. he took credit for them and made money after them. people should read those. to this gentleman from conaway, i mean, you might be attractive by some things that ron paul said. i have totally agree, you shouldn't -- there should be no blackout about ron paul. really preyed up on what ron paul has said over the years and see if you're comfortable with someone who embraces so

many conspiracy theories, who plays so fast and loose with facts and has a fundamental view of america that i don't think is what most americans, most conservatives believe. host: michael, democratic line in edmund, oklahoma. go ahead, michael. caller: yes, i'd like to give a comment on what ron paul said last night in the south carolina debate. ron paul, he has his issues too just like everyone else. at the same time ron paul says things that's cut and dry that the american people really can understand. putting those political words -- half of the people don't know what they are talking about. at the same time ron paul is right when he says we need to clean our own back yard. with the military being overseas, that's where all the money is going. overseas. that's why we are in the mess that we are in. plus, the how longing market, that's another problem -- the housing market, that's another problem in a got us in this mess. now if we kept in a all in in

order, maybe we wouldn't be in the mess in a we are in now. that's my comment. host: ok, michael. we'll leave it stand as a comment. gary, independent in parkview, oklahoma. good morning. caller: good morning, greta, bill kristol, i think this is my first chance to even talk now. a question concerning governor of arizona. he reminds me as an old junkyard dog. if you get close to him he'll snap you on the behind. i'm one of those people that became a libry tarian in 1980 and basically the reason was i think i felt that the republican party had really lost its way. i was one of those that really do believe in small government, efficient government. i felt that the drug war and i still feel the drug war is just so unconstitutional. it just has ruined this

country. it has cruised the old concept and saying that power corrupts. host: ok. what's your comment or your question, then, for bill kristol? caller: concerning jerry joornings he's a man who talks the talk and walks the walk and yet republican voters did noft volume up on him, just kind of left him in the dirt. i don't runs it. he actually adheres and governs in so-called republican principles. host: ok. bill kristol. guest: he was governor of new mexico for two terms. i'm not sure how successful he was or wasn't. he ran as a strong lib reritarian. johnson, i don't know well, i think is a principaled libritarian. he mansion to articulate their

view without the conspiracy mongering and without the impuding mad motives to -- bad motives to rivals. he says these guys want to fight endless wars. does he believe that mitt romney and rick santorum get up in the morning thinking, hey, wouldn't it be great to have young men and women fight difficult wars overseas? does he not believe that the policies they'red a vow crating are right for the country and in a it deserves to be debated? he won't debate them. ron paul talks about how he wants to debate but he doesn't debate. i've never seen him engage in a debate. i'd love to debate him one-on-one on foreign policies. he has built up a big network over the years. i think a lot of decent people vote for him because he's telling it like it is. they want to send a protest vote. i think it's unfortunate. ron paul supporters will remain ron paul supporters, i suppose. i don't believe will get the

nomination. he's getting a heck of a lot of publicity. look what he's said in the past and see if he's the kind of person he wants leading this country. host: "the new york times" this morning -- some conservatives back away from santorum. evangelicals, christian leaders meeting over the weekend coming out of it saying we're all coalescing around rick santorum. now it's coming out a couple days later, no, no, no, we any the ballot box was stuffed over the weekend. guest: there was no stuffing of the ballot box. this is a guy who supported ron paul. one on ron paul's payroll sold an article to the newspaper. i don't buy they are dishonest men and women. there were a lot of newt gingrich supporters there and

rick santorum supporters there. i think gary said they are not telling them how to vote. they're reporting there was a stronger -- more voters, more supporters for rick santorum than newt gingrich. they agreed, i guess, ahead of time to try to come to coalesce around one candidate. more than 2/3 voted for santorum. if anyone wants to support gingrich or anyone else, they're free to do so. to say this is somehow illegitimate or doctored or ballot box stuffing i think is unjustified. host: is then the former senator, rick santorum, anybody but romney candidate, that social conservative are now coalescing around? guest: no, because newt gingrich remains formedible. i think there are two anybody but romney candidates. i am not one of them who is desperate of getting one of them out. i may say that romney is better than both of them. i don't think it hurts for them to stay in. conservatives are paniced, if

one of them doesn't get out, they'll split the vote. fine, they'll split the vote. paul will get a view. then they'll go on to the next contest in florida and they'll go on after that. now at some point obviously it has to narrow down. once april 1 happens and it's a win or take all states, then being first with on a plurality starts to happen. i think -- there is some momentum. there are headlines, you know, running first is better than running second or third. yes, the conservatives paying a little bit of a prize for the split between santorum and gingrich, i suppose so. i don't think it's really proper or i don't feel that i want to pressure either one of them to get out or to say if

neither one of them gets out the race won't be open. it's not like there will be people in a are like sheep that will be herded between one or the other. let them make up nair mind. let the voters in south carolina begin to make up nair mind. i think last night's debate was interesting. you wouldn't have thought you would know all about these candidates. you learn something especially with fewer people on stage. host: there is a tweet here. mr. kristol's, jobs is first on america's mind. how would you gauge the substance on last night' debate, not much discussion on jobs. guest: i agree. i think over the course of these debates we've seen their approaches on economic policy which don't differ that much, i think it's fair to say, from one to another. i do think san forum is bolder on entitlements. he's not saying that social security should be left alone. maybe he's the riskier

candidate to nominate if you don't think the american public is willing to say that millionaires who are getting social security may be shouldn't get their full social security, the same social security payment as someone who's living off that his or her primary source of income. i think we're seeing the differences. again, when you get these debates you get a lot of different issues. you don't get the kind of perhaps, you negotiation sustained discussion of one topic that some people might want. they can go to people's websites and see their plans. host: republican in austin, texas. you are on the air with bill kristol. caller: good morning, mr. kristol. when mr. brown asked the question about mitt romney's father, he was booed. i have a question to ask you. mitt romney's grandfather in 1835 fled this country with his five wives who moved to mexico and basically denounced the country. mitt romney's father was born in mexico. i remember when obama was

running and it was all of this stuff going on about him being a birther and stuff like this. seems like me the romneys have a more questionable background about as far as is he a citizen or not. host: before we get an answer from bill kristol, i want to know where you read that information? caller: i didn't read the information. i heard it on a show. that's where i heard it. host: about mitt romney's grandfather. all right. bill kristol. guest: i think barack obama is a citizen and mitt romney is a citizen. there is nothing wrong with -- you are not responsible what your grandparents or great grandparents did. i think it's a nonissue. host: horning lake, mississippi, lisa, independent. you're next. caller: i was waiting for a member to call. my comment is about the tax disclosure. i believe that 20% of

unemployed people in this country who have to aplow a potential employer to look at their credit report is just as wrong as the people who think that it's an invasion of romney's privacy to disclose his taxes. host: ok. bill kristol. we asked that in our first 45. guest: it's been the custom since 1976 for presidential candidates in a general election to disclose their most recent tax forms. i think it's reasonable actually. now people expect it and now they are going to have to do it. i think the reason that romney said, i'll do it in april. just like john mccain did in 2008. mitt romney is running on his private sector record so it makes a little more sense for people to say, ok. let's see more of it. bank capital forms is

secretive. secret is not fair. they're private. doesn't do them any good to have a huge amount of publicity. provide to their clients appropriate disclosure. they don't provide it to the whole world. i think it's a little more -- it's a little fairer for people to say, ok, you said you had is a very successful private sector career, you obviously made a lot of money but we need to see a little bit of what you did as c.e.o. of that firm. he seems to be a good c.e.o. of that firm. it probably makes sense in his case for him to release his income tax returns during the primary process so people can see. i doubt if there's anything at all damning in them. if it is would be kind of nice to know now, not in april, may or june when he's sown up the republican nomination. host: does it matter how much tax he paid or has paid over the years? guest: it matters a little bit. i mean, if he took -- had a good accountant and took advantage of perfectly straightforward way of various a plus, i think one thinks might be the case the carried

interest provision would have him pay capital gains on his income rather than the income tax rate. host: which is capped at 15%. guest: capital gains was reduced, i guess, below regular income, and what would have been in 1997, if that's the case, i'm not going to criticize him for that he paid what he was supposed to pay. people will have to look at if and just see what judgments they yant to make. host: let's go fought republican line. bernie in brooklyn. good morning, bernie. caller: good morning. putting aside afghanistan for the moment, what's the current political rational -- rationale for keeping troops in korea and europe and how do you feel about it? thank you. guest: rationale is there hasn't been a war in korea for 60 years and war in europe except the ones in the balkans. we don't have troops there. it doesn't cost us not much money. if we ever have to deploy

troops, which we will have to do again and are doing right now, it is helpful to vr bases in europe to have bases to deploy and hospitals in germany which is closer to afghanistan than we are. it's helpful to have the ability in korea to deter the north koreans and bases in asia to deter china from doing things. i think ron paul goes on and on how much it cost these troops all over the world. it doesn't cost very much. it really doesn't. unless you not want to have troops at all. it sometimes sounds he wants to bring the troops home. and sometimes he wants to cut the military as a whole by an awful lot because he doesn't think we should intervene anywhere. that's a fair debate to have. i am happy to have it. i don't believe that's a recipe at all a safe world or a safe united states of america. host: this tweet here from michael murphy wants you to jump ahead to a hypothetical general election. who's your pick for romney's v.p.? is sarah on your short list

like last year? guest: no. that was an exciting -- we can debate whether or not it -- it didn't hurt mccain at the end of the day. he lost what he was going to lose by anyway. whether they handled it well or whether she handled it as well as she might have is a question you can honestly debate. everyone seems to think that rubio from florida might be a pick. there is a worry he might pick someone new who is in their first term. will it be an example of palin. or take someone senior like mitch daniels. if you want to go young and i tend to go yuck. i think against president obama in a new era, having someone -- it would be good to have someone younger in the ticket. rubio and paul ryan.

you want to double down on sort of sober senior statesman i think mitch daniels, the very successful two-term governor of indiana. i wish ryan, i wish all of them would run. i think some of them would be strong candidates. i think i could see if romney were to win the nomination deciding, they are going to attack me for being sort of boring and not as young and new generation as obama so i'll take mitch daniels to say we know whatary doing, we're sober, we're sound. i could see romney-daniels. i could see romney-rubio or romney-ryan or somebody else. caller: hello. thank you, c-span. and mr. kristol for having me. it's interesting. i was watching the debates last night and the fact is that i saw the twitter was overwhelmingly in paul's camp whereas the other candidates did not fair very well. so my question is, mr. kristol,

i'd like to understand the disconnect between the debates and the public of why paul could be so far out in front of the candidates and also it's interesting that romney and the rest, other than paul, are being pumped, as william randolf hearst, would talk about, and the other thing i ask about, i see, mr. kristol, the conspiracy theory which mitigates the imfact of what mr. paul said in terms of foreign policy and domestic issues, could you give me an example, mr. kristol, of a conspiracy theory you think is viable whereas the other candidates would not stand for it? host: ok. two issues there. guest: not exactly what the last question is. i think ron paul has a fondness for conspiracy theories. he's been on the radio show consistently, including up until this past year, of a leading 9/11 conspiracy

theorist. he's praised him elsewhere. so i think that's just the fact about ron paul. people can go look at all of his letters and what he said over the years and decide if he's a sober judge of what's happening in the world or has a tendency towards conspiracy theorists. i don't think the other candidates does. i may not agree with the policy. i don't know why people on twitter are more pro-ron paul than not. host: i think referring to the polls, too, that the disconnect -- guest: well, paul's done pretty well. he got 21% of the vote in iowa, the caucuses, 24% in new hampshire. he's certainly getting his message out to the voters. he raised a lot of money. he has a lot of ads out, including negative ads, a superpact, against santorum. so paul's doing pretty well for someone like him who says has

views that are pretty far removed from the mainstream of american conservativism. he had nothing to do with. the republican revolution, the reform in 1996, all these other efforts to relimit government without doing away with everything that's been done over the last century. he's a pretty big critic of everything that's been done by government in the last century. i don't agree. host: let me show this headline from "the washington post" from this morning. guest: president obama has done a pretty good job politically of him thinking it's a republican-run congress. it's good to run against

congress when you say that. the republican house has done all right. but in terms of the politics i am worried that they have sort of made themselves a pretty good punching bag for president obama. some of it's unfair. life is unfair. you have to think about how to deal with it. i think the next year is going to be prettying from on the hill. you showed nothing will happen this year. i'm not so sure this is. often things happen when people thinks are not going to happen and vice versa. i can imagine with all these issues up, including the extension of employment uninsurance and the payroll tax, i can imagine speaker boehner and president obama cutting deals, for example. i may not agree with those deals. and the sequester that will really gut our defense spending. gut our military. so i think the whole congressional front will be an interesting -- we look at these

presidential races. you think the race about these candidates and the jockeying and the debates. of course, real events happen in the real world. one of the things you said is europe. how will that affect the u.s. economy? what will happen with iran? and what happens in congress? that could really affect the general image of the president, the general image of the republican party and could affect the presidential race. loip let me also get -- host: let me also get your reaction where huntsman said he's no longer in this presidential race. let's listen to what he had to say on that issue. >> as its core the republican party is a party of ideas. but the current toxic quorum does not help our cause. and it's just one of the many reasons why the american people have lost trust in their

elected leaders. today i call on each campaign to cease attacking each other and instead talk directly to the american people about howure conservative ideas will create jobs, reduce our nation's debt, stabilize energy prices and provide a pricer future for our children and our grandchildren. host: bill kristol, is it a realistic request? guest: if it's a request he should have followed when he ran. he didn't exactly test the proposition. he -- most publicity he got and sought and his chief campaign strategist sought was clever. it was clever. videos mocking romney and afacting other candidates as well, making fun of other republicans for that matter. i find it -- i am not a big fan of them getting out of the race

and saying the system is flawed and then tell the candidates what to do. i get back and forth from the debate. revealing a bunch of issues as well as other candidates standing up and giving a 30-minute speech for what he wants to do with the country. host: go ahead. caller: good morning, bill, greta. first off, i think someone needs to give a copy of "atomic iran" to ron paul. i think that book should be required reading for every politician in washington. i mean, number one, iran has committed numerous acts of war against the supply and terrorists killing us in iraq and afghanistan and on and on and on. in my mind i think they need to get to the same state that

osama bin laden did. but that's my opinion. don't you have think the fact is 60%-plus of the american people -- i heard some polls support raising taxes in this economy. isn't that a testament, not only to the ignorance of a large part of our population but the failure of us in the media, us as conservatives, us as leaders to empower people with the knowledge of history? for instance, newt gingrich touched on this in several debates. in september in the third year of reagan's first term, we created over a million jofpblets host: i am going to leave it at that point. guest: i agree we shouldn't raise taxes. conservatives have not done a good job of why that would damage job creation. people look back and say, hey, the top rate under president

clinton was 38%, 39%. we created jobs. reagan, 35%. it didn't turn out so good in the last part of the bush administration. you don't have to be a socialist or left wing to think a couple points on the marginal rate wouldn't be disastrous. i shouldn't be saying this. my friends are probably having a heart attack. but more broadly on the fundamental question of the size and scope of government, whether or not being in debt 1.5 trillion dollars, a burdensome tax code on savingses in particular is a good idea, i think conservatives have done a pretty good job on the debate in the last 20, 25 years. when you get a big financial meltdown like we did in 2007 and 2008 and a recession, you have to expect people are not going to necessarily -- that happened with a republican president. let's face it. people aren't going to automatically believe all the republican and conservative arguments.

let me say one thing about ron paul so we are so interested in him and we have to go in a minute. i am not going to apologize at all. people when they criticize ron paul they have to preface, he's a good guy. i don't think he's a good guy. i think he'd be better fought for the republican party, and i thought about this some -- i think it would be better for the republican party if he left the republican party. a lot of republicans are saying, how do we keep ron paul under the tent? host: including his other opponents? guest: yes. and his opponents being nice to him on stage. gave a primetime speech in the 1992 primaries. he supported bob dole. i don't think bob dole won. he left the party in 1999. a lot of people said goodbye and good ridans. you are not in the mainstream republican. he didn't get many votes.

george w. bush -- the republican party was helped, free of buchanans, extreme isolationism, protectionism, anti-issual views and the like. ron paul is different than pat buchanan but no better. the republican party would be benefited in the long run but even in the short run. host: even in the 2012 election? guest: look how many republicans voted for him? host: it would hurt president obama? guest: i don't know honestly. i would feel comfortable as a republican and conservative saying -- ron paul can do whatever he wants and his supporters can do whatever they want. people are free to support whoever they want. i wouldn't -- i would be comfortable if romney or santorum or gingrich would be standing in the reagan tradition and debating both barack obama and ron paul. host: let's get in one more phone call. rick in tennessee. if you could make that quick

that would be great. caller: 1994, four candidates was for nafta and has cost this country millions of jobs. millions of jobs and it ain't very patriotic for a company to take their profits and move it overseas for their own gain and your gain that you got money that you put and invest in. thank you. guest: well, i supported nafta and i do today. i don't think we lost jobs to candidate. to mexico, some companies did move jobs to mexico. i think trade between the -- canada and the u.s. and mexico and u.s., i don't apologize for supporting it. caller: good morning. mr. kristol and america, stop lying about ron paul. there is a revolution going on in this country. this is restoring individual liberty. talk about the issues for crying out loud. he wants to end the federal

reserve and give us sound money. he wants to end the undeclared and unconstitutional wars. guest: didn't he say last night he voted for one of those wars? caller: you know, no. listen to me. he voted for the authority to get bin laden. that was not the authority to go into iraq. and besides, don't demagogue the issue. we are talking about personal freedom and liberty. you neocons are done. fox news lies. your propaganda is a disgrace to the republic. give us a break. host: all right, richard, bill kristol. guest: i think this is a country of liberty and we don't need ron paul to bring us back our liberty. i am a critic of the federal reserve. i'm not one of those who rules out every radical change in economic policy and other forms of policy. i'm happy to debate foreign policy with ron paul and pat

buchanan and people that agree with them. but the notion somehow, fine, ron paul can lead a revolution. i'm not interested in a revolution. i am interested in restoring limited constitutional government in a sensible way. i'm also interested in preserving the good things that government does. i'm interested in preserving a strong u.s. role in the world which i think is important for ourselves. i'm interested in stopping iraq from getting nuclear weapons which ron paul seems to think is not important. if ron paul thinks it's good to have an iranian regime with nuclear weapons and a nuclear arms race in the middle east, if he thinks in a kind of world is a good world and will be a free world and make it easier to preserve freedom at home for our children and grandchildren, he's welcomed to that view by i don't agree with it. host: business kristol, founder and editor of the "weekly standard." thank you. >> it's four days until the south carolina primaries, we'll have results for you. florida primary follows 10 days later with nevada's caucuses on

february 4. and maine's week-long caucuses the same week. our "road to the white house" coverage will follow all of that. this afternoon, president obama announced that current deputy white house budget director jeffrey will serve as acting director. he was confirmed by the senate in 2009 for his old position and has previously served as acting director. he takes over from jack lou. no senate confirmation is required for an acting director. up on capitol hill today, the house is returning from its holiday break as a washington post/abc news poll shows that 84% of americans disapprove of the job congress is doing. politics p.a. reporting this afternoon that six-term republican congressman todd platts announcing this afternoon he will not run for re-election in 2012. the house today starts the second session of the 112th congress. that includes electing a new sergeant at arms and that takes

place at 6:30 p.m. eastern. tomorrow, the vote on raising the debt limit to $1.2 trillion. and the senate returns to session next week. tomorrow on "washington journal" "time" magazine and white house correspondent michael sherer talks about the superpacts. his article is linked, by the way, on our website at c-span.org. you can join us live tomorrow at 9:15 as mr. scherer talks with us and you. well, this morning, "washington journal" looked forward into voter fraud and state laws designed to stop such fraud. we talked with the head of the american civil liberties union, the legislative office here in washington, d.c. >> "washington journal" continues. host: laura murphy is the director of the american civil unit to in a -- civil liberties

union's washington legislative office. why are voter id laws wrong? guest: the states that enacted them have not been able to prove that voter fraud, the rationale for voter id laws, is a problem. the bush justice apartment from 2005-2009 made voting fraud a priority. at 300 million votes cast during that period, the only account 86 incidents. south carolina and enacted a voter id law. was not a single piece of evidence put in the play that voting fraud was a problem in south carolina. and the effect of these voter id laws is disenfranchising millions of americans. a 11% of adults and it is estimated to not have a form of voter id. this will impact the elderly,

many who let their driver's license and government ids idea -- expired. students move around a lot. a lot of registration apartments have closed down so you have to travel longer distances. it is hard for the disabled and elderly to wait in long lines. and minorities, it is estimated that 25% of african-americans do not have voter id. host: image and south carolina. as one of six republican states that tauten their laws to require a total id. it was part of last night's debate. here is what texas governor rick perry had to say about the issue. [video clip] >> i am saying also that south carolina is at war with this federal government and with this administration. [applause] when you look at -- what this

justice the bar and has done, not only have they taken to task on voter id, they've also taken the task on immigration laws and the most egregious thing is this national labor relations board where they come into a right to work state and tell the state of south carolina if we are not going to let a private company come in here. that is irresponsible. i would suggest to you that it is unconstitutional. all spain laura murphy, the issue -- host: laura murphy, the issue of the state. guest: i think it is ridiculous. the voting rights law, poll taxes were being implemented, discouraging people, especially people of color from voting, the voting rights act has been

renewed as recently as 2006 by a huge bipartisan margins. when the justice department looks at a state like south carolina, they are obligated to do that by the voting rights act which was passed and re-enacted in 2006. huge republicans champions, signed into law by president bush. the idea that this justice department is picking on south carolina and other states that pass these repressive voting measures is ridiculous. this research and of states' rights is interesting. we have made constitution and the right to vote is referenced so many times in our constitutional bill of rights. it is implicit in the first amendment, the 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, the 26th amendment -- six amendments to the constitution reenforce the right to vote, whether for women, for 18 year olds, the elimination of the poll tax, and so we have a long history of people trying to take away the

right to vote from groups of people whom they think do not support their political views. host: you mention the 14th and 15th amendments. guest: they were passed to give the right of equality to former slaves, because the states refused to recognize that former slaves had the same rights as everyone else to vote. but that was not enough. even after those amendments were enacted, it took decades to enact the voting rights act of 1965, and it took riots and bloodshed, the march in selma, the historic rate -- the historic march over the edmund patdown bridge, it really propelled congress and lyndon johnson to push for the enactment of the voting rights act. host: on map of voting rights

laws across the united states. before 2011, only georgia and indiana required photo ids. many enacted laws to require more rigorous proof of identity. most will be in effect for the 2012 election, though some required justice department approval. the green states are the strict standards. the yellow states, but go with an exception, they can vote if they meet certain criteria such as signing affidavits attesting to their identities. and the blue states are non-. >> id states. they must show some form of idea but a photo is not required. the states with the red at -- is there some

compromiser? guest: as a condition of voting, there is a cost socially with getting not just the id itself, but also the background materials, a birth certificate costing anywhere up to $28, getting a u.s. passport in costs over $100. in essence, it is like a poll tax. it requires people to pay for something in order to have something that they are entitled to do as u.s. citizens entitled to the right to vote. we're not against them per say, but used in the voting context, proving to be discriminatory and they are expensive. in this era of fiscal austerity, states are closing

down dmv offices and what the supreme court has said that in those states that require a photo id for voting, if people can prove that they are indigent or poor, the state must give them a photo id, but the state is not required to pay for the birth certificate leading to the id, or the passport, so the supporting documents are a cost, even if the state gives you a free photo id. it is a fiction that somehow it is all free. plus hourly wage workers have to stand in long lines, and the dmv's are closing around the country. we recently met a couple from tennessee, the campbell family, this man had an id, but it was not -- after 65, in tennessee do not have the photograph. now tennessee has passed a photo id law.

it took him four or five efforts to convince the dmv that he was entitled to a free photo id. we're seeing that many people who work at these agencies do not understand the new law and are not getting proper training. host: this tweet. guest: my deceased mother decided to stop driving when she was 73 she ran for public office three times. she lived for 15 years and voted for 15 years with no problem. had she been alive today and required to go to the dmv, we would have had to drive, stand in line, find her birth certificate, find her marriage certificate because women have a special hardship if they change

their name, they also have to provide a birth certificate and a marriage certificate, and get her to the polls. everyone assumes that everyone is middle-class and we do all of these things. they do not think about the senior citizens. they do not think about the disabled. they do not think about the students moving around. you can board a plane with some type of government-issued id, sometimes the state student i.d., you can get on a plane. but to vote, there should not be so many inhibiting factors. especially when there is no demonstration that fraud is a pervasive problem. host: benjamin as first, a democrat in california. you are on the air with laura murphy of the aclu. caller: if they require the idea, i always wanted to see the fourth branch of government recognized as a voting body of voters. i do not think they should be

able to change the laws governing voting. it should be decided by the voters. also, i was wondering, if they are having us the the id card, maybe they should have watched some how, using technology. so when i vote on a digital voting thing and i've signed in, it will not let me sign and anywhere else. guest: the first issue is when you mail in your voting. generally for male in voting, the first time you show up at the polls, you do have to present a photo id of some kind. male in voting understandably, thousands of people could mail in false voting registration, but we have not seen as a problem in the state. we've seen people confused, we have seen people move and forget to update their voter registration material, but we and not seen the problem with mail-in voting.

some states have excluded mail- in voting from some of these restrictions and it does not make sense. there are new technologies being developed that can make it easier to identify voters, but there is also concern about national data bases that could be used for one purpose -- started for one purpose and used for other purposes. we have to balance privacy concerns with our civil liberties and our right to vote. it is not so easy just saying, have a identifier and that will solve the problem. that may create more problems than it solves. host: jody on twitter ask about that. guest: it is not a problem.

we do not have to go with the virus scanner the more invasive technologies. -- iris scans or more invasive technology. some of the databases, and just look at the social security number. oftentimes the social security number requested when it has no relationship to anything that you need to transaction for. social security was started as a means of identifying people that receive retirement benefits, and it has moved in moved. we are a little concerned about these databases. host: this is the daily call or a piece written recently their records show that there are 900 dead people who may have voted. how you deal with that if you do

not have some sort of photo id requirement? guest: they need to clean up their voter registration lists. it gives south carolina to clean up their voter lists so that the dead people can be purged. so many states have failed to comply with the laws. that is incumbent upon the state to eliminate those names from their data bases, so that people are not voting. but there is not proof that. they have asserted it but they have not proven that. host: chris and brooklyn, your up next. caller: thank you for taking my call. miss murphy, i think you are ignoring a few kings. i appreciate that our people out there that do not have all lot of social connections, but we have a vast social network averages out to the elderly and others. photo id is pretty it ubiquitous so it is a canard that you bring up that there's a way that they

will not get their voting service. you're setting up a class warfare and group war there and you referred to that. i am white heterosexual men. if i go into an equal of deployment opportunity office, they will not take my resume. would you take my case? i am being discriminated against. it will not even take my resume. thank you. guest: we are representing white males who are finding that they are having problems getting the documentation to vote. we have clients in missouri and wisconsin who are not your typical profile, but maybe because their students or they have moved recently, and maybe because they have lost their jobs and happened to be low- income, they are having difficulty, or they are disabled, they are having difficulty getting photo id.

i do not think it is a canard by any stretch of the imagination. host: what is the aclu effort to push back against the photo id laws when you look to the states that have them, green being the strictest standard, and yellow with exceptions. what are you doing in the states? guest: how much time do you have? we have 53 affiliate's greatly involved in the state initiatives, and state legislative efforts, to restrict the right to vote, opposing them, organizing them, traveling up and down the state, making sure people are aware that votes are coming up, like the mississippi initiative to require voter id recently enacted. we are very active in ohio, in maine, in avoiding the state law that eliminated same-day registration, we are bringing

lawsuits in georgia, the first organization to challenge voter id laws in georgia and indiana, and we are asking the justice department to bring enforcement actions in states covered by section 5 of the voting rights act, since 16 states are parts of states are covered and have to get their voting changes pre- cleared, so we have been meeting with the justice department. we have met with the attorney general. we're also in the process of putting out a fact sheet to know you're voting rights. know your voting rights, it means state-by-state analysis, that let you know which states require photo id, which have eliminated same date brodeur registration, which states have eliminated a third party registration, and one of the interesting things is like in florida. they have instituted -- they

did institute third party registration restrictions, which means that the league of women voters that have been registering voters for 70 years in florida will no longer registered voters in florida because the penalties are so extreme and the requirements are so extreme, you can get criminal penalties, fine, if you do not turn over the people that you register within 48 hours, which is difficult when you have people coming in and registering voters. there are onerous requirements and florida. host: how much money is the aclu spending on this effort? guest: i do not know that we have quantified it. my office has been working with the justice department and producing materials and testifying before congress. we have the center for quality that is based in new york, and they had -- for equality that is based in new york, and they have organized information for voters. and then we have the voting

rights project in atlanta, which has the largest number of voting rights legislation -- litigation of any voting rights organization. we use every resource at our disposal at the state and federal level. host: we will get to iraq -- rick and massachusetts, but i want to show this headline. go ahead, rick. caller: good morning in thank you for c-span. it is a great show, and a great and former of the american public. for your guests from the aclu, she's been throwing numbers like 25% this and 10% debt. where is that automation to back that up? and both my wife and i are disabled. we found no difficulty in obtaining photo id, and another

thing about the aclu, we attempted to contact them about a decade ago about a gross discrimination here in our town. we were told by the local representative of the aclu that it was not important enough and it would not garner enough publicity. can she answer that for me? guest: i did not know about your particular situation but there have been several studies about the numbers of people who are disenfranchised by photo id laws and voter suppression tactics like getting rid of same-day voting, early voting, making those things more difficult. the brennan center has put out an excellent report, one report on photo id and another on more generic report on voter suppression. the aclu has issued a report, and those reports are based on data collected by universities,

by the government, and so these are highly documented, research reports. i would urge you to go online and look at the aclu website, look at the brennan center web site, but that it lawyers for civil rights website, and goes to the department of justice and see why they have not precluded some of these butter suppression laws. there is ample documentation for the claims i am making. host: you're probably familiar with a column written on october 70 by a former congressman, democratic congressman davis, when he was the congress, he took the path of least resistance on the subject for an african-american politician.

guest: i did not seen any evidence when i read that article. i cannot vouch for his claims. he has a right to his opinion, but i do not think his assertions were backed by fact. host: culbertson, new york, bruce, a republican. are you there? we lost them. bobbie, a democrat in jackson, mississippi. caller: ms. murphy, thank you. i am proud that you are pushing this effort, your position. i had been involved in primary elections for nearly 25 years. and there is no voter fraud. it is just a sham for voter for suppression, and at least in some of the states and the one

that ayman, that it applies to, i hope you can push it and i hope it can be defeated like it should be. thank you. guest: there is someone that is involved in trying to combat the recently passed measure that would require voter id. that has to be pre-cleared by the justice department and not allow the voter id requirement to go into effect. it is well documented in mississippi how there have been practices to suppress turnout in african-american districts and put them in places that are far away from the committees that they are supposed to serve. things like that are going on in

mississippi. contact the justice department and asked them to look into that. host: we have a break down along the numbers. host: we have a tweet from t.j. guest: i am saying that the justice department made voter fraud in 2005 a huge priority and from 2005 until 2009, the justice department investigated states across the country and they were only able to find 86 cases of voter fraud after 3 million votes.

theret have a need to say isn't a problem, but there just is not a problem with voter fraud in america. every state has the ability to prosecute voter fraud. if there is a problem -- somebody was convicted in maryland threw rowboat calls -- robo calls. that kind of fraud is illegal. that we need additional requirements is a solution in search of a problem and a costly solution. these poll workers are often volunteers and they do not have as much training as tsa agents in checking id. host: mark in florida. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. you claim the aclu wants to protect the citizens of the united states. how do you prove when they are citizens? how many lawsuits did the aclu go after with voter fraud? god bless america. guest: the state has to get some kind of documentation from the citizen in order to register that citizen to vote. the question isn't whether there needs to be any documentation. we do not want non-citizens voting. when you go down to the registrar, you have to show utility bill or a birth certificate or something. to make you show a photo id is

more complicated than it appears. i does have to show two forms of documentation to prove i was a resident of the district of columbia. i showed my electric bill and i showed my passport. but not everybody has a passport. i registered before i changed my driver's license because a registered upon moving to the district of columbia. so i had a house and a utility built by did not have a driver's license in that jurisdiction yet. college students have the right to vote but have not changed all of their id to produce a photo id in that particular

jurisdiction. they may have a photo id in iowa when they go to school in wisconsin. host: we have a tweet from gary. let's hear from janet in west virginia, a republican. caller: i cannot say what she would say you do not need a voter id. it is just ridiculous. we have so many people coming in here with identification from dead people and everything else. you have plenty of time to go get a photo id. i think it is ridiculous. guest: if you are an hourly wage worker, you have to pick up

your kids after work. you have to make sure you put food on the table. you are often trapped between working two or three jobs. some people have plenty of time to register in advance. we want to deny the growing rate of poverty. just because people do not have time does not mean they are not interested in exercising their right to vote. so we go all over the world, the middle east, africa, and we encourage people to facilitate voting, especially in the arab spring countries. in our own country, we have been electing -- erecting barriers. if there were based on a factual basis, that would be a different story.

host: we have a question on twitter. guest: no. many states are not waiving fees. they may waive the photo id itself, which could cost $25 just to get the photo id. they are not waiving the feet for the documents. -- they are not waiving the fee. the birth certificate is a cost to have that mailed to you. or if you lost your id, your purse was stolen, you have to pay for all of the supporting documentation. if you cannot find your marriage

certificate -- if your name was changed. there was a woman in tennessee who could not vote. she had her birth certificate. she had her utility bills. but she did not have her marriage certificate that showed her married name and therefore she could not vote. caller: ithank you. the real fraught are these mandated voting machines that are controlled by the republicans -- the real fraud. patches are slipped in on those machines and the flip the vote. 2.8 million votes were never even counted.

the fraud of not counting the votes versus the 1% of voter fraud. guest: i think the caller makes an excellent point. we need to make sure there is efficacy and that resources are allocated so that ballots are checked and double checks. host: carroll is a democrat in illinois. caller: i live in a republican area. when we go to the polls, we have to sign a book. there is a copy of the original signature when we first went to vote. i did work as an election poll worker and we use that information when people came up

to vote. if the signature was different, we talked about whether this was the person. i don't think there's that much fraud. more people are being disenfranchised by trying to put these laws and. people say it is important to have a photo id, to go on a plane. not everybody goes on a plane. guest: i agree with your comment. i had to shore up and sign one i voted in maryland and the district of columbia -- i have to show up. some people have strokes and their signatures to change.

many states where people don't have their voter registration card -- it is not a photo id. they will make you sign an affidavit saying under penalty of perjury, it can be a state violation and you can be prosecuted if you misrepresent who you are. only get to it in person fraud. you walk up to eight voting place and say you're jane smith when you are jane doe. that is such a rare occurrence as compared to things like the rowboat calls -- robo calls in maryland. other things are being

prosecuted. the idea that somebody misrepresent themselves at a voting booth, even states that passed of voter law cannot prove this is a problem because it is n't. caller: can i just state these facts that were put out by our state senator? they found 37,000 to 95 registered voters that are dead but continued to be listed as active voters. 937 dead people actually voted. 334 active voters are registered at the same residence. one-person is listed as being over 130 years old.

warm person was convicted on 14 counts of voter fraud -- one person. voter intimidation and voter fraud. we need voter id in the state. guest: i think the problem is with the florida system of voting itself. they do not purge -- host: south carolina. guest: they do not purge the roles as required under the act. they are supposed to keep updated voter rolls. the government has a list of people that are dead. the aclu in south carolina has

asked for supporting evidence. we are filing comments with the justice department. we think those are false allegations. host: a caller from georgia. caller: good morning. i think the aclu is yet again in the different states going to stir up trouble within people. i have a mother who has had no problems getting her voter id. nobody in georgia has either. i think even after our voter id law had come into affect, there were more minorities that voted, not less. guest: i think that last point is correct. but it is burdensome for low-

income people, for many elderly people. not as many elderly people are as lucky as your mom. there are not daughters like you who facilitate her voting and a lot of people have transportation challenges. the economy is facing a downturn. in terms of the aclu, we do not go looking for trouble. we're devoted for upholding the bill of rights and the constitution. there are six amendments to the constitution that support the right to vote. it is the most heavily supported right in the bill of rights. we need to understand there is a national imperative to empower people to vote. these empowerment --

requirements did not pop up until 2006. why did we have these laws before 2006 and we did not have a photo id? and now there is an effort, the copycat bills being pushed into state legislatures across the country and the design of these bills is to suppress the right to certain voters. we have not seen anything like that in recent history. caller: how are you? i am enjoying this program. this lost looks suspicious -- this law looks suspicious to the united states and to the world. the united states has had a history of voter suppression.

for this new law to come about, this looks bad for our country. i hope you continue to fight this. host: last comment. guest: the aclu is proud to be championing the right of voters across america regardless of race, class, disability, gender. we will continue this effort. we're putting resources into this effort to preserve voting right and to stop voter suppression tactics that we think are not necessary and are not based on sound evidence. sclr >> the u.s. house returns today from its winter break, they will

begin they are second session of the 112th congress, including electing a new sergeant at arms, that's today at 6:30 eastern. legislative business resumes in the senate on january 23. news that todd plat, six-term congressman from pennsylvania, will retire after this term and will not run for re-election. and a new poll shows a new low for congressional approval, 6% of people disapprove of the job congress is doing. live house coverage here on c-span at 6:30 p.m. eastern. tomorrow, our spotlight on magazines focuses on superp.a.c.s, their spending and role in the campaign. our ghost will be michael scherer, the white house correspondent for "time," read his article online on our website at c-span.org. >> leading up to saturday's

south carolina primary, we take you live to candidate events all this week. >> we need to eliminate the entitlement programs. we need to cut them, cap them, send them back to the states, remove federal oversight and let the states have the flexibility to deliver these programs. we have brought to the forefront, others have tokenly talked about it they get in office and they do nothing about it, but right now, it is this liberty movement which is seen as a patriotic movement, an individual liberty movement, that is saying to the country and the world, we have had enough of sending our kids and our money around the world to be the policemen of the world. it's time to bring them home. >> the candidates get their message out, meeting voters. >> we're so happy you're here. >> thank you, thank you. >> you have my vote.

>> thank you so much. >> the endorsement? >> we feel good about that. we feel the conservatives are coalescing around our campaign. >> and find more video from the campaign trail at c-span.org/campaign2012. republican presidential candidate rick perry continues campaigning in south carolina. ahead of saturday's primary. it's one of four events the texas governor has today. earlier, he hosted a town hall meetings at a veterans of foreign wars post. this is about an hour. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> y'all stay right where you are, dent get up. thank you for being here. appreciate you. how are you, sir. good morning to you, thank you for coming out, appreciate you being here. how are you, sir? we were just talking about, he signed a -- i got an old one, way cool, we auctioned it off once, it ended up on ebay and bought it back, sent the proceeds to brooks army medical center. thanks for what you're doing out there. >> how are you, sir? yes, sir. it's good to be here with you. thank you for coming out. how are you. rick perry.

thank you for coming out. rick perry, how are you. good to see you. thanks for coming. good to see you, sir. >> good morning, governor. >> thank you for coming out. let him take our picture. that's all right. we're all a little slower this early in the morning. >> good to have you with us. >> thank you. >> we've got a georgetown, just north of austin. >> thanks for coming out. thanks for your service, man. we were over in georgetown, pretty little place. just a gorgeous town. really enjoyed the time we spent

over there. my wife is over there. then we drove back through town and, man, those old big oak trees, i've got to think that's a great city to live in. >> i was away from it 26 years serving in the army, i'm glad to be back, i'm within half a mile of where i grew up. >> that's perfect. rick perry, how are you. >> getting tired? >> can't be tired until saturday. ready to go?

>> mike was here last night, i said, i'm going to have to do a long introduction of mike, he's easey to introduce anyway. >> ladies and gentlemen, i want to thank all for being here with us today. what a great opportunity we've got in murrells inlet, south carolina, at the v.f.w., to meet a couple of great americans. we have a fine pair here, i tell you. this pair will beat a full house any day. ladies and gentlemen, i had the opportunity some months ago to be present at the republican

national governors' association winter meeting. it was in park city, utah. and i was helping a friend of mine, a friend of mine works out at park city, he runs a sleigh ride business. and he invited me to go up with him, he said, you know, there might be some people there you want to see. and sure enough, who is one of the first persons that decides to jump in that horse drawn sleigh but governor rick perry. i'd had rick perry on my mind for quite some time. i had known rick perry from some time i spent in texas. i knew about his record. i knew that he had brought in more jobs in texas during the worst economic times of my life in this country, and i think of the lives of everybody in this room, had brought more jobs into texas than any other state in the union.

and i had been thinking for some time, that is what america needs. america needs a job creator. america needs someone, a c.e.o. of this country, that knows how to get the government out of the way of doing business. and get this country down to business and create jobs. we need somebody that understands how to deal with our porous border. and who better than the man that's created more jobs than any other governor in the country? who better than the governor that shares a common border with mexico? so while we were sitting together in that horse drawn sleigh, governor, what about it, will you run for president of the united states. he said, alan, you know, i'm praying over that right now and

i hope to have a decision soon. well, his decision brings us here today. i am so proud, i am so proud to call rick perry my friend, he's a friend to south carolina, he is a friend to the united states of america. ladies and gentlemen, would you all join me in a good, hearty, horry county v.f.w. welcome to our friend, governor rick perry. [applause] >> thank you very much. alan has to go back to the state house. i said, get on back up there and earn your money today. appreciate you brother, god bless you, thank you for being here and to all of you for coming out on a nice overcast morning. it's a real honor for me to get to be traveling with some of the

people that i'm traveling with today. i will tell you, mike and i have known each other a long time but -- a young fellow i've known even longer than that, that's my son, griffin perry. griff, thank you for coming out, it truly is a -- to be in the v.f.w., to be surrounded by men and women who really understand that freedom is not free, the cost of that, a lot of people talk about it, but you all understand it to the core of your heart, in your soul, you understand, because you have made that sacrifice. as the old prophet icey ja, when god was asking -- isaiah, when god was asking, who will go for us, who will represent us, he said, here i am, send me. those of you in here, when your country needed you, you held

your hand up and said, here am i. send me. and that is such a powerful display of love, of devotion, of honor, and it's one of the reasons that i tell young people, i say, listen, there's a lot of ways you can serve your country. there's a lot of ways that you can volunteer to give back. but wearing the uniform of your country i put at one of the highest levels of service and i am -- i will be forever thankful that i grew up, i grew up in a little place called paint creek, texas. you'll have to do some pretty heavy research to find it on a map, unless it's a texas road map. i had it put on the texas road map. but it's about 200 miles west of fort worth, texas, and it is just -- it is rural, dry land

cotton farming, little school out in the middle of a cotton patch a farm to market road goes by it and across the road is two churches, a methodist church and a baptist church, your choice. that was paint creek, texas. a great place to grow up. my cut master was also my superintendent of sunday school and was also the president of the school board, but he was a 1932 graduate of texas a&m and part of patton's third army. he regaled us often about the exploits of those individuals in world were ii. my greater privilege in life was that i was a son of a b-17 tail gunner who flew 35 missions over nazi-held germany in 1944. these are the people who helped develop the veries -- values and principles i lived my life by.

they understood the contests of selfless sack feese. they taught me the values of conservatism from the standpoint of whether it was conserving our money or whether it was conserving our water. i grew up in a house that didn't have indoor plumbing. conserving water was a big deal. i always said, taking a bath in a number two wash tub doesn't take you long in a -- in the winter out on the back porch. i'm a hard core conservative in conserving water, though i didn't realize it at the time. that's the fiber of who i am. it was those individuals who reflected about how you live your life. it was those people who i will always be grateful to god that i had the opportunity to be around them and they and their friends,

my dad was a v.f.w. member, obviously, and we would go to the american legion post as well and we would see individuals and talk about that our country is strong because we have a strong military. it's because of this selfless sacrifice that the individuals who volunteered to serve our country. and my dad, we were talking, my dad will be 87 in april. my dad's been a county commissioner for about 28 years he understood about service. whether it's service to your country or your state or your community, dad always taught me about, listen, son, your responsibility is to give back to your country. there are people who came before you who sacrificed and that's your responsibility. to serve in the military. to serve your community or your

state. i'm standing before you today, i live a purpose-driven life. and it goes back to my father and it goes back to my mom and people who understood that you give back. that's what this country is really based upon, giving back. and no other, as i said, no other way reflects that better than men and women who have worn the uniform. and it is such a powerful message that we continue. tad and i were talking the other -- dad and i were talking the other day, he still pays a lot of attention, still just crack smart and i just love my dad, he taught me so much. he said, you know, son, he said, the government is supposed to do three things really well. i said, yeah, dad, what are those? he said they're supposed to stand a military, they're supposed to se cure and deliver

the mail, preferably on saturdays and on time. i said dad, they do one of those pretty well but two out of three is not good enough. that really is a reflection of where we find ourselves today with a country that -- that's allowing its federal government to get so big and so onerous and impact us as -- impact us. as a government gets bigger and bigger in washington, d.c., our liberties get smaller and smaller. from my perspective, that's what this is about. coming to the v.f.w. today, traveling with mike, being around those of you who have served our country in making sure we continue to support the young men and women of our armed services is of paramount importance. how we take care of them, mike and i were just talking about

it, he has been such a sack official man all of his life, he continues to help these young vets that are coming home that are impacted in a lot of different ways. it's one of the things i focused on and made sure we do in the state of texas. i want that state, and i challenge others -- other governors, you need to put programs in place that send the message that your state respects and supports and helps those young men and women who are coming home. whether it's making sure that you've got policies in place from an economic standpoint so that they can find a job when they get home, all too often these kids, particularly our national guard troops that get pulled in and out, they come back, we make sure that their jobs are being hold for -- held for them in the state of texas. we make sure that when they come

home, that the -- what they've learned in the military can be transferred over into college credits without them having to sit there and grind it out at a community college or one of our universitys so they can get credit for the technical things they learned. i mean, it makes a huge difference, not only does it save the state money, it also saves them money and time, gets them into the work force for them to transition into that civilian work force. we give our veteran whors disabled, if you're 100% disabled in the state of texas, you do not pay any property taxes on your residence. that is a powerful message to those who have served. that we are recognizing and i continue to look for ways to be able to send a message to those young men and women that what you did will never be forgotten

and it's not just in a memory and it's not just a parade, which i believe the president of the united states ought to be able to say, when you come home from the military, we're going to have a parade to say thank you. i think that's important as well. but there are other ways to do it. other ways that are more concrete, that even last longer than the memories of having people say thank you for your service. and i want these individuals who are coming home, particularly those who have been wounded, i want to offer up for this country to consider a wounded warrior tax exemption. if you have been wounded at the d.o.d. as designate -- if the d.o.d. has designated you as an individual while you were on service to the united states, you get a five-year exemption from paying any personal income

tax in this country. that's sending the message. that's sending the message that will last longer than a parade. that'll last longer than a proclamation on the wall. a pat on the back. all of those are important. but to be able to clearly say, to help financially, to get their lives back, these post 9/11 veterans, certified by the department of defense, deserve that type of exemption. if you sacrifice that much for your country, the least this country can do is to give you that type of support when you come back. someone who has worn the uniform of this country, i want to tell people that -- and as the commander in chief for the last 11 years, as we have deployed our national guard to multiple theaters torque iraq, afghanistan, we've had our

troops in bosnia during the period of time i have been governor and i understand, not only having worn that uniform but also having been the commander in chief for the last 11 years, the impact that it has, not just on our warriors, mike, but also on their families. as the president of the united states, our sons and daughters will not be sent into a conflict unless there is a clear and a clear and compelling reason for us to send them in and when we send them in, i can promise you we will send them in with all the power and might that the united states can put in place to win, not to go for any other reason than to win and to get it over with and get back home as soon as we can. that is a commitment that i make to the men and women, not just in the mill tear but the men and women of this country.

i want to talk just a second about the campaign that we're going through and the issue of -- that i think is on a lot of people's mind, that's obviously the economy, as alan shared with you, i've had the great privilege to oversee the 13th largest economy in the world over the last 11 years. we created more jobs than any other state in the nation, over one million jobs have been created in my home state while america lost two million jobs. i can't wait to stand on the stage with barack obama and talk about our job creation differences. i will bring a stark contrast to the current president of the united states when it comes to the issue of job creation. we know how to do that. we know how to do that as a country. you can't overtax and overregulate and expect sprep neuros to continue to go risk their -- entrepreneurs to their -- entrepreneurs to continue to go risk their