that in the last quarter of 011, 58% of -- of 2011, 58% of the oil consumed in the united states was found domestically in the united states. 58%. you go back just 20 years ago, 60% of our oil was coming from overseas. now almost 60% of our oil is now in the united states coming from the united states. we are making progress. hydraulic fracking, horsontal drilling, finding new well sites, great new technology and geology, all the ways we are finding these new sources of energy, doing it cleaner, doing it less expensive than we have ever done it before. that's a good thing for us. . the second lrgest reserve of oil in the world is where the keystone pipeline organize nates in canada. this is a key time for us now getting better technology in the united states to be able to use

our own energy and partner up with canada and draw on energy from canada. we continue to draw from them in that sense. you would think this would be a simple thing, focus on our national security. why wouldn't we continue to focus in and say if we aren't depept on energy from the middle east, why wouldn't he continue to take the steps on this? why wouldn't we continue to expand on our pipelines? you see this isn't the first time to do a pipeline for keystone. they did it a few years ago. it took 24 months to permit. from the exact same area to the same area, 24 months for the total permitting process. that pipeline is functional, and active and running right now. they want to double up their capacity. you would think this would be a slam dumping, add a second line there. they instead of 24 months, we

are at 42 months of pementing and still climbing. same pipeline crossing over the border from the exact same area took 24 months now the same pipeline takes 42 months. in addition to that, keystone is one company and there is another company, that draws oil from the exact same area in canada and takes it through the united states. that pipeline is also currently running and hasn't had any issues with permitting and process with instruction that it did years ago. you see, this is president not some new oil discovery. the united states uses that oil and has used that oil for a long time. it is a reserve from the same area and not wondering about the flow of oil. dealing with the united states, 5% of our oil usage coming from

our own country and dealing with reliable neighbors and dealing with our pipelines like canada and mexico. right thing to do for our national security and right thing to do for jobs. talking about immediately private jobs. no government participation other than the permitting being finished, private money begins to sink in in the billions of dollars to run 1,700 miles of pipelines. pipefitters are based in oklahoma. union jobs, right-to-work areas. dealing with steel manufacturers for that pipe. pipe manufactured most of it done in arkansas, people digging the ditches, driving the trucks, thousands of jobs that begin immediately across the entire central part of the united states in many manufacturing areas. we need to be able to open that up and run those jobs run and the third thing on this, not only national security and jobs,

but just basic common sense. oil will be sold somewhere. we could argue and complain about that and canada isn't going to use their own resources when the second discovery of oil is underneath your feet, they are going to sell that oil. shutting it down and say americans aren't going to take it and we'll sell it west doesn't make common sense. number two, we should provide as much national security as we can from this and that is basic common sense. number three is the basic simple thing, new pipeline. we could argue about pipeline safety and we need to work on pipeline safety and we as republicans and democrats have passed pipeline safety initiatives. this will be the newest pipeline in the country and have the highest standards for safety and highest technology and monitoring of any pipeline in

the country. the alternative is to put it on trucks and trains which has a higher incident for accident. this is the safest way to do this. and as i mentioned before, it's not as if we are drawing this oil already, this increasing our capacity not to be depept on venezuela. there are pipelines running from the exact same area already down to the gulf. we need to continue our capacity so we are providing for our energy long-term. i would submit to this congress and submit to the president and ask for his prompt approval, even early would be great, to be able to move and say let's get this off our back and get the jobs going and for our national security and continue to work through this process so that we don't have to deal with issues like this again. far be it from us in the days to come that manufacturers would say, i don't want to do

manufacturing and construction in the united states because i'm afraid the president will slow down the jobs project, i'm afraid congress will slow down the jobs project. we should do it better. we can and we do. this is a simple project. approve the keystone pipeline and approved through the states and nebraska is working through the approval process. we need to approve that 50 feet crossing that 50 feet from canada to the united states and let's get that project going. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. seeing no further requests for recognition, the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta's time having expired and under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the

designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: i thank you very much, mr. speaker. it's good to be back and wishing you and all of our colleagues the best of this new year and happy new year. and i hope yours and the other 433 members of this august body

had a great holiday season. for many americans, that was not the case, however. unemployment remains high. and fortunately, just before we broke for the christmas holidays, we did pass a piece of legislation that extended the unemployment insurance, and that's really important, and extended for two months, the reduction in the payroll tax, and that put money into the pockets of working men and women around this nation. we have much work to do this year. we just heard a presentation on the keystone pipeline, which will add a few jobs, 6,000 jobs, temporary, building the pipeline. and that's good. the rush to judgment on it, however, should be very cautionly approached. pipelines can be dangerous. look in california where a pipeline exploded and the recent yellowstone contamination that was caused by a broken oil

pipeline. haste can make waste and can cause problems. i would urge us to be circumspect. i suspect this pipe line will be built but it ought to be built properly and in the right locations. i will be joined later by my friend paul compingo, from the great state of new york, and percent representative captain tur from ohio will be here. i want to talk about solid american jobs in the american sector. for more than a year, we have been talking about making it in america, rebuilding the great american engine of wealth and created the biggest middle class in the world and greatest american engine that america has seen an incredible decline,

often caused by policy, governmental policy. couple of examples to give you. outsourcing. outsourcing just doesn't happen, but happens that the economicses of the situation has changed. when i arrived here in november of 2009, a debate was under way about how to rebuild the american economy and one of the things we took up was the issue of taxes. turns out that american corporations received somewhere between $12 billion and $15 billion a year in tax reductions, that is you and i get to pay corporations for doing what? sending jobs offshore, offshoring american jobs. fortunately in december of 2010, without any support at all from our republican colleagueses, we passed legislation that terminated $12 billion of those subsidies. providing a positive encouragement or eliminating a

positive encouragement to eliminate offshore jobs. we can do more and that's what the make it in america is all about. many, many pieces in this. we look at where we are today, economists will note we have seen significant growth in jobs. the unemployment rate is down to 8.5% and it's a good thing and still far too high. we have seen 330,000 manufacturing jobs created just this last year, and that's good, but that's not enough. on the other hand, we have also seen layoffs. the government sector, despite what you might hear, have seen a very significant decline in employment. state government, local governments all across this nation have been laying off people. in california, 42,000 touchers have lost their jobs in the last -- 42,000 teachers have lost

their jobs in the last two years, incredible statistic, when we need a more highly educated work force to lay off teachers seems to be a no-brainer. why would we do that? well, we did it. and we have layoffs occurring across our nation. we need to turn that around and we can. we need to turn around the decline that occurred over the last 20 years in the manufacturing sector. and we made a start. but there's much more to be done. we have lost perhaps 45% of all of our manufacturing jobs from some 19 million to down to just over 11 million in the last 20 years. coming back, 330,000 this year. more to be done. fortunately, we have an ally in the white house. that ally is president obama who

said wakes up up every day thinking how can we americans solve this crisis in our economy? what can we do to put men and women back to work? how can families know they have a secure future? way back in september, president obama proposed the american jobs act. wasn't the first thing to be done to get americans back to work, but it was a very important step. the first thing that was done by president obama and the democratic majority in this house way back in january of 2009 when the administration took office was to create the stimulus. the stimulus works and it's working today. in my district out in california, you can't go very far down a highway, across a bridge, see a levy -- levee

without seeing a sign that says the american recovery act. bridges are being built. highways have been repaired. the tunnel on the east bay in the oakland hills has now been drilled through the mountain. it will be completed almost totally financed by local government and a larger majority of the money from the american recovery act. we can rebuild jobs in america. that was step one. along the way we have seen tax poll policy changes. the president enacted with the democrats and some republican help that actually gave companies a 100% writeoff for every capital investment that they made. the result of that, some of the greatest capital investment in the last 20 years has been made just in 2011. we are putting people back to work. we have a long way to go.

we aren't nearly where we need to be. and for employers, an incentive in the american jobs act that was proposed last september has become law. with bipartisan sanship and that proposal, now law, gives employers a tax reduction, a credit, for every returned veteran from america's wars. they can go all the way back to the vietnam war. and an employer who takes an unemployed veteran can get a $2,500 benefit. for a disabled veteran, $9,600 deduction in the employer's taxes, a great incentive to hire

those veterans who sacrificed their lives for this country for the safety and freedom we enjoy. . . a couple of other parts of the jobs act have to be put in place. one i like is infrastructure bank. we know we're not flush with cash. we know the federal government has a serious deficit. we know we need to solve that. we also know we're not going to solve it unless we actually put people back to work. the infrastructure bank is a good way to deal with two problems simultaneously. putting people back to work, building infrastructure, perhaps pipelines, certainly those kinds of things that have a cash flow. sanitation systems, water systems,le to roads,le to bridges. all those things where there's a cash flow, where we pay a fee for using that piece of infrastructure. the infrastructure bank would be started with a loan from the

federal government. the president said make it $10 million. i say put it $25 million and reach out to pension funds -- pension funds and give them a chance to invest in this. right now a government bond gives you 2%, this would probably give you 5% or so. most who have looked at this believe you could generate from $70 billion to $100 billion of loan capability. that could immediately be used to build projects. i know in my district we have sanitation projects that need to be built. we have water projects, we have levees, we have dams and other infrastructure that needs to be built. those that are cash flow possible can use the infrastructure bank. in sew doing -- in so doing, we free up other infrastructure

projects for which there is not a cash flow. flex, the -- for example, the levees i just mentioned and there are many other projects, highway projects, universitys, laboratories, research facilities, that you could then use the general fund as we have done for more than a century to build these infrastructure projects. so the american jobs act, as proposed by the president, has an infrastructure bank in it. it also has a major infrastructure project tandem to it. those two things together can put men and women together -- to work together across this nation. and even more could be done if this particular piece of legislation were to pass. this is the real make it in america piece of legislation. i happen to be the author of it. i wasn't the first to think of it. for some time we've had what we call buy america. but it's been routinely ignored

over the years. so the buy america provisions, while ignored, need to be strengthened. that's what this piece of legislation does. it says that our tax money, gasoline tax, 18.5 cents, diesel tax, 25 cents a gallon, go into the transportation fund. is that money being used to buy american buses and raid road and high speed rail? the transit facilities? is it? often it is not. but if this bill passes and it is now before the transportation committee here in the house, were it to pass, it would be -- it would require that all of our tax money spread out over a five-year process -- phase-in process, would be used to buy american made equipment. you want to travel out to san francisco? you ought to, we could use your tax dollars out there. come and visit. but as you travel from oakland

to san francisco, you'll travel on the old oakland-san francisco bay bridge. adjacent to it is a new, magnificent bridge being built but it's not being built with american steel. most of the welding was done not by americans, but by chinese. inen effort -- in an effort to save 10%, the state of california decided to buy chinese products. chinese steel. thousands of jobs created in china. virtually none in america. chinese engineers came to see it was properly erected. where were the american engineers? this piece of legislation has been adopted by the state of california. it's the law there now. i dare say that if this type of legislation were the law when the san francisco-oakland bay bridge was put out to bed -- to bid, that that steel would have been made in america, american steelworkers would be employed, american welders would have done

the welding and there would not have been the quality problems found in the chinese product and chinese workmanship. let's make it in america. let's use our tax money to buy american made equipment. we just had a long discussion about oil. we're going to use oil for a long time. that discussion also talked about natural gas, which many people see as the transition away from the dependency on oil to a dependency on renewable and green energy systems of the future. so we're probably going in a transition period for several years but in order to get to that place where we are totally independent of the oil dictators around the world, where we are no longer using oil to -- for transport but rather using electricity or natural gas,

we're going to need assistance to move to that. for many years now, starting way back in the 1970's, the united states has had a policy of implementing what are known as green energy systems. principally solar and i think all of us are familiar with solar and similarly the wind turbines now being found on hill tops across the nation. so, where are those things made? where do we make those? where do those solar cells come from? where are the turbines manufactured? until very, very recently, not in america. but your tax money and my tax money is used to subsidize this new industry. and as that money is being spent, it must be spent on american made equipment so that americans can have those jobs. we're going to continue to import. if you want to go buy a solar system for your house, you can buy whatever you want.

but if this bill passes, if you want that tax subsidy, then it's going to have to be an american made solar system. no more outsourcing american dollars to china or europe or wherever. bring those dollars home. put americans back to work at home. these are things that can be done. it is a policy direction this congress and the senate should be moving quickly to make sure that things are made once again in america, particularly those things that use our tax dollars, whether it's a bus, a rail line, a bridge, or a solar cell or a wind turbine. all of this is possible. all we need is a law that says, our tax money will be used to buy american made equipment. that is just one part of what we call make it in america. this initiative has many other pieces. some of it deals with education.

we know, anybody that looks at any economy around the world, knows that if you going to have a strong economy, you have to have a very well educated work force. so where are we in america? are we the best educated? -- best educated work force in the world? we used to be, but not today. not today. earlier i mentioned 42,000 teachers laid off in california. president obama had a solution. -- solution to that. in the american jobs act, introduced last september, president obama said, let's hire teachers. some 280,000 teachers could have been hired across this nation for the fall semester if our republican colleagues had brought that bill to the floor and we had found the sufficient vote here's and in the senate. that's not a bad thing to put

280,000 teachers back to work. and by the way, what kind of facility would they be working in? if you were to look across our nation at the schools, you'd see many that are run downful old. the laboratories either in disuse or very ancient equipment. not up to date. even in kansas city. so what are we going to do about this? the president said, let's invest in refurbishing our schools. putting men and women become to work. painting, fixing up the school grounds. repairing the toilets. building the new laboratories that are necessary for today's educational system. hasn't happened yet. i would ask our republican colleagues, if they care so mightily about the economy, they ought to care about the most fundamental investment that any society can make in its economy, and that is education. the american jobs act, many pieces to it. infrastructure, transportation,

infrastructure bank, tax credits for hiring the unemployed and a tax reduction for every american working through the payroll tax reduction. a good program. we're now in the middle of january. by the end of february, congress will have to face the reality of terminating the unemployment -- the payroll tax reduction and raising taxes on every american, or continuing it. for me, we've got to continue it. we also ought to continue the unemployment benefits. because the jobs are not yet there. we passed the american jobs act -- if we passed the american jobs act, there would be far more jobs available, but that has not happened. we face some tough choices ahead as we debate how will we pay for

this? how will we pay for the february 29 extension of the payroll tax reduction. and the unemployment insurance. our republican friends have basically said we have to pay for it by taxing the middle class. by reducing those programs that the middle class depends upon. from health care to jobs to education. the democrats have a different plan. we think president obama is correct. that we ought to ask those that have been so extraordinarily successful in the last two decades, the super rich in america, the top 1%, to pay their fair share in keeping americans in their jobs and providing them with enough food this they can eat and pay their rent through the unemployment insurance. let me show you a chart here. of why those super wealthy,

those whose annual income is over $1 million a year, why they can pay just a little bit more. the bottom four lines -- the bottom throw lines here are the bottom three quarters of the population. the -- those in poverty, low-middle, and middle class. the top line are those in the very top, the top 10%. they've seen their wealth grow by extraordinary numbers. some 350%. while down here at the bottom, very, very little. in fact, most of this comes from two, from the husband and wife both working. two members of the family working. there's plenty of opportunity here. the president is suggesting a very small tax increase of 3.5% on that amount over $1 million. it's not going to bust anybody's

bank. they're still going to have plenty of money to go do their golfing and buy whatever they need to buy. but what will happen is americans will continue to have an unemployment check, if that job is not available to them, and americans will also be able to see a reduction in their payroll tax so that they too can compete in this american economy. so with that, i think we'll wrap it up for the evening and we want to keep in mind that america can make it, when we make it in america. federal policy is critical if we're going to succeed. many things that we can do, we reviewed some of them here tonight, we'll be talking more about it as this week and next week goes on and we approach that february 29, once every three-year opportunity for this nation to do what is right for those men and women in working -- and working families out

there, and for those who are unemployed. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. garamendi: to move that we adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question on the motion to adjourn, the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted.

accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for we have brought to the forefront, others have talked

nothing about it. right now it is this liberty movement which is seen as a patriotic movement. it is saying to the country and the world we have had enough of sending our kids and money around the world to be the policemen of the world. it is time to bring them home. >> they get their candidates message out. >> i want to shake your hand. we are so happy. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. i appreciate that. >> we feel very good about that. the conservatives are coalescing around our campaign. that will be good. it is not just in south carolina. >> by more video at c-span.org /campaign2012. >> wednesday on "washington

journal" we focus on super pacs in the role in the 2012 campaign. our guest will be michael scherer. you can join us tomorrow morning for the conversation at 9:15 a.m. eastern on "washington journal." >> now a discussion on recommendations by the federal reserve on stabilizing the u.s. stock market. from "washington journal" this is 35 minutes. >> we are back with a finance director. the federal reserve played in on stabilizing the market. let's begin with the condition of the market. housing prices have fallen 33% since the 2006 one.

-- 2006 peak. it is very weak. we are five years into this problem. by the statistics they are using, we have a long way to go to get out of this both in terms an axis of supply as well as the demand side or people are sitting on the sidelines waiting to come in. they are fearful to do so because of potential job loss once they get in the home. >> i want to take that last ball of light.

the ratio is 55%. can you explain that a little more? why is important that >> it is important largely because homeowners have historically looked at that as a historic well for good or bad reasons as opposed to simply a place to live after the last several years. people actually looked at that as their nest egg. as you see an erosion, is a percentage of their net income. it is problematic. it is also a psychological issue for borrowers. they say i had price erosion in my home. a lot of women to uncertainty as to what they think they can do to move it to do something.

host: the white paper that was issued said what? guest: the fed is saying to address the supply issues along with some of the regulators and coming up with properties that are back on the balance sheet of banks and fannie and freddie, looking to convert those into rental properties. we have seen a significant amount of vacancy rates for rental properties -- it might be a good opportunity to try to look at that as a possible remedy to the supply overhang. host: would that require a congressional act? guest: not necessarily. half of these properties lie with fannie mae and freddie mac. if they could get the fdha to help facilitate a problem -- the others are split between

banks and thrifts. that would be more difficult. the sec one is credit availability --the second is credit availability. homeowner uncertainty. the fed did not speak to this. they want to increased credit availability. look at the surveys they did. we have tighter underwriting standards. they are looking at potential areas where we could go back to the basics and figure out how we could stimulate demand for home ownership.

a significant problem of foreclosures is still with us today. the various refinancing programs have not really worked. we have less than a million of them that of taking advantage of the lower rates. mortgage modification programs have not been as successful. they have put people in about-- 900,000 people into permanent modifications. the fed is suggesting we broaden our focus and look at other possible remedies to try to address the foreclosure problem. some would be to look at principal modification. there are folks on both sides of the debate that say this is a good thing and a bad thing. it comes down to what amount would be dropped to some level in order for them to make the payment more affordable. host: wasn't that the point of these programs? guest: the hamp program was around reducing payments to a certain level of debt to income ratio based on an interest rate deduction and short-term extension.

there were available the of principle modifications but could be done but that has been difficult to engineer because banks have been reluctant to do that. host: why did they issue the white paper? guest: that is a point of great discussion. one of the things that comes

across to me is that they have seen that we have about half a million properties that are out there with depressing prices. after the moratorium that when in place, we're seeing as many as quad chart times that amount over the next two years of properties that will be coming in on our marketplace. the fed said we need to do something and to get a game plan, a framework to be able to address these issues. host: what can the fed do? guest: they can work with the sister agencies to help move some of this all along. beyond that, some of the changes -- they can use the bully pulpit to move this along. they are the overseer of fannie and freddie and they're not necessarily wedded to what the

fed wants to do. host: mike from wisconsin. go ahead. caller: i was wondering if you heard about reverse mortgages. that's my question. guest: reverse mortgages are mortgages that pursued a boat for folks that are at or approaching retirement age -- are suitable for folks that are at or approaching retirement age to look to take some of the equity out of the home and use it as a way of getting a stream of cash payments over a point of time.

the home reverts back to the issue of the reverse mortgage as opposed to the beneficiary of the estate. host: houston, texas. caller: i was wondering if this is a game by the fed to monetize mortgage just backed securities. any time they do any business at all, they have to do it through the primaries on wall street's. the primaries on wall street did a big margin. this is a way to recycle money so that the banks on wall street can get a big commission. guest: understood. what the fed is proposing is less about coming up with a financing mechanism for addressing the demand and supply

issues as much as a policy framework for how to address them. we still have a significant financing issue in this country with respect to over 90% of mortgages being securitized effectively by the government. we have had discussion on this and and so we can get more private capital solutions into the marketplace, i think we will be a stuck in this limbo land. host: dr. rossi has nearly 25 years experience in the banking and government sector. explain what you've done with the lending groups and your role at freddie mac and fannie mae.

guest: i was the head of risk management for citigroup's 3 under billion dollars secured assets portfolio. -- $300 billion. i developed credit policies with the underwriting of those mortgages as well as how much of a loan reserve which should be holding on to this and working with our default and collections to figure out what sort of policies that could be put in place to help struggling borrowers. what about last roles was heading up mortgage policy for freddie mac -- one of my last roles. host: what has led to the situation that we've seen today? guest: my time from early 1990's at fannie mae, the end of 2003, right as they were on the cost

of changing gears from a credit policy standpoint. when you look back on what happened, there is a mentality where lenders and the insurance companies were headed down the same path together in the name of competition and not in the name of prudent risk management. host: and congress' led them that way? guest: there are folks who own the housing crisis as it stands today. when you look the policies, i think that puts in perspective some of the reasons or ammunition for what we saw such an increase.

host: republican from california. caller: i want to thank the gentleman for his work. the fare reserve board cost this issue, this massive problem that we are having. the result of these so-called solutions that they are bringing fort will only cause more problems. we need to refinance and keep people in their homes. i suggest that we lower the principal on all these loans, lower the rates, keep the people in their homes. take them off the foreclosure roles and that is one less house you have to worry about.

the notion that they will comment and give us advice on how we deal with the problem when they caused this problem. guest: a couple of things. the federal reserve can make some policies here. principal modifications are tricky. one of the things we have to keep in mind is that somebody has to eat that reduction and principal. the taxpayers have put out about $140 billion to cover losses. the principal modifications would cost the taxpayers some more money. that is a social question that congress needs to take up as to how far we want to go into this issue. host: we have a tweet -- that is not the one i wanted to read. i wanted to read this one. guest: there is a lot of political rhetoric up on the

hill and that does not help. we need to hear all the good ideas. put everything on the table. the regulatory community needs to do the same thing. let's try to figure a way through this. despite the difficulties for people that are struggling, i think we have to realize that it will be difficult given the state of our financing today to be able to subsidize some of this. we need much more creativity. host: we have this tweet from james. guest: we may have in this country over subsidized housing

to things like the mortgage interest deduction and other areas to the disadvantage of other industries in sectors of the economy. we need to revisit this as we move forward. host: tyler, thank you for waiting. wentr: my parents' house on the foreclosure auction as of 6 minutes ago. they lived in the house for 15 years and they went through a mortgage or modification. they could not pay the monthly payments. nobody really teaches the regular americans how their money works in the entire system.

they are pinned against the wall in terms of what they know. they can ask. so many people sign their name on a note and it got sent over here and that bank failed. they are stuck saying, what do i do? there is no process for paying attention to the guy that is trying to make the car payments. we're drowning. guest: that is one reason why i think you saw on the dodd-frank act that i should new record to reform, the new consumer financial protection bureau. they will give that measure a focus for ensuring that consumers understand the types of contracts they are entering

into that were problematic in the days before the crisis. option arms. it is difficult to read the fine print and understand what that contract is all about. host: we go to alabama on the independent line. go ahead, caller. caller: i think the federal reserve needs to be eliminated. they have cause problems in all areas of our economy. we need to be back on a gold standard. people should not buy what they do not have money to pay for. host: will be the impact of eliminating the federal reserve?

guest: major financial shock waves. some people believe that they may have overreached from what they're standard mission is around monetary policy. we are in an unprecedented waters in regard to what has happened to the economy. so the fed may be charged with a bit of overreaching. i think the long-term ramifications from unwinding the federal reserve would be severe. host: foreclosures fall. what does that mean for 2012? guest: there is some abatement from the activity of foreclosures in 2011 as we saw with the regulatory issues trying to get their arms around the mortgage servicing process.

for 2012, will probably see another million properties entering into reo. we're talking about a wave of inventory coming into the market that will further lead to price declines. host: so filings will go up and not down. guest: that is my expectation. we will be seven years removed from this housing crisis, which as been a long nightmare. host: what does that mean for folks who own a home, who are paying their mortgage every month? guest: i think what it means that they will simply see there is further erosion.

we might see some stability in pricing. i don't call for a stabilization this year. we could see another 5% price decline. for those folks, continuing to pay on the mortgage is what they will probably want to do over the next several years. they have a light at the end of the tunnel. host: a democrat in michigan. caller: good morning. i find bank of america is doing nothing but playing games. i went through four months of paperwork and faxing things to them. they said that they cannot help me.

i try to get a payment in. it is crazy. i do not feel they want you to save your house. guest: the banks for many years neglected their mortgage servicing operation. they take a fee in for the purpose of servicing your mortgage. they did not invest to make a seamless process for homeowners. now they are scrambling. the five largest servicers have tried to play catch-up. they have done a decent job. the regulators are now rushing in and this is creating an enormous amount of confusion right now for the homeowner and for the banks and for the regulators themselves. one thing we're seeing from these consent -- is to have a single point of contact or every

homeowner that wants to : and understand what is going on with their mortgage, they have one person that they can go back to time and time again so that the paperwork is not a confusing mess. host: explain the overreach. guest: there was an editorial in "the wall street journal" saying it might be more of a political maneuver on the part of the fed to try to look like they are doing more of housing than what they've done over the past several years. some folks are discount what the fed's motives is on this. i don't believe this is politically motivated. i think there is fear about the direction of work this inventory problem is heading and the impact on prices. host: are enough people paying attention to it?

guest: absolutely. i have been saying this for quite some time. we need a comprehensive battle plan to address the housing issue, on all fronts -- demand, supply. we have the fragmented housing policy situation. we have hud and the federal reserve, the bank regulators -- host: congress.

guest: all these different constituencies and it is hard to get that focus that we need in housing. host: the federal reserve board meets next week. what you expect there will say about the housing markets? guest: this was a framework. one issue i have with this white paper is that we are five years into this crisis yet we have another from work that is very generic. we saw the treasury, with the document on reform, very generic. i doubt we will see that when they get back together because this is an interagency issue that will remain unresolved for months to come. host: we have an e-mail from robert in atlanta.

guest: absolutely. with so many of these mortgages bundled up into securities with different investors, it is difficult to come count -- to extract them. the infrastructure is very poor to be able to understand where those mortgages lie. back in the day, we were actually putting a first mortgage in combination with trying to understand who the of second smolko -- holder of the mortgages. is republican in virginia. good morning to you. caller: i was one of those who

lost his home and job with a $700,000 home. in the work force, i was in construction, so you could not even go back into another job and even make the difference to keep the home. i did lose my home, but it shows up under credit and they tell people they cannot make their payments for three months. that kind of ruins their credit for about 18 months to two years. i have even worked with people who have done it and lost their homes. they just did not get it. there were no different than the person that i helped that did not keep it. there is the fact that for everybody that has lost their home is going to see a seven- year cycle for each year on

credit or even a 10-year cycle because of bankruptcy. >> what you want to know is -- caller: there were a lot of houses lost even before the loan modification. guest: this is a very difficult problem. what we are finding with the modification programs that have not been that successful, it is because we are treating borrowers effectively all the same. the rules to qualify or all the same period a lot of these borrowers are people that have either lost their in come, lost their jobs and are failing right then and there, and there is no other remedy for them to go through the foreclosure problem. that is where the fed comes back

and says we need to find ways to tree august these borrowers. some people are current but deeply under water on their mortgage. some are in default and they need help because of some circumstance like their job loss or income has been cut. we need to deal with people -- some people simply will not make, and those people will have to find another way out, possibly a short sale to make this a little more humane. host: do you think it comes to a head and forces congress to do something? guest: i think if we can see improvements in the u.s. economy, first and foremost, we can get that unemployment rate down below 8% for sure, which i don't believe we will, but we

would have to see an appreciable change their before we could cut and move forward. we or five years into this. i am wondering why we have not bought more creatively about what to do with those two entities at this point. i understand we have to stabilize things and not sweep the market anymore than have been, but there are things we could do to make things more efficient and transparent. to create what effectively would be a good bank, bad bank situation from fannie and freddie. we would have them aggressively work down together.

we would combine fannie and freddie and focus on that part. we take their front purchases of loans and we would combine those together. there are differential policies still being made between the agencies that creates a vast amount of confusion. that would bring transparency and efficiency into the public market. host: mark from michigan. caller: you discussed fannie and freddie. i thought that whatever fannie and freddie owes, all-out one year that they can negotiate and whenever they need to make good, a tax write-off. the concept is is somebody borrows money for the loan for a house, you have a 10-year cycle allow one year not to pay for that loan. that would be negotiable

depending on finances. "hey, i would like the available but not to pay this loan because i do not have a job." build on that type of cycle if you do not want to take over their house. if that happens the next year, increased the rate a little bit. compassion for those people that want to keep their house. guest: this goes in the spirit of creative solutions. i have written about this before. coming up with mortgage products which would address a significant amount of borrowing uncertainty and psychology. i think the idea -- what is keeping people on the sidelines

is the concern that if they get into this mortgage contract, they might experience and unemployment spell or a reduction in income that makes it difficult for them to meet debt payment. having some kind of mortgage insurance or employment insurance component to the mortgage product could help in that regard as well as other areas with respect to the possibility that they could experience further declines in the equity that they put down on the home. these are in the spirit of credit mortgage products solutions that should be looked at more closely because it could induce more homeowners back into the marketplace if they knew they could take out some of the uncertainties that they have. host: people want to follow you and get your latest take on the housing industry, work in the read your writings/

guest: i have a blog. go into the robert a. smith school of business website. under faculty, you'll be able to find my blog site. host: barry is next. caller: we had the rtc and they've figured it out when they had $500 billion in assets that they had to take care of. my understanding is there were $396 billion in bad real estate assets. that was -- all the things that the financial industry had done and we became an equity partner with the banks. this program has been a

disaster. guest: there are things that the regulators could do better the next time around. having lived through the thrift prices, i write about the need to be able to create public- private types of arrangement that leave the taxpayer whole by the end of the day. equity sharing arrangements have not been as successful because we have not found a way to be able to figure out whether that is something that we want to do or not. we still do not have somebody accountable in the administration or the regulatory community. i agree that there are a variety of different mechanisms that we can try to put in place to see if they work and that is

more of what i think we should start to look at. host: don in new mexico. caller: good morning. one consideration was to move the homeowners to the bankruptcy process. they never followed through on that. i believe would be farther through if we had move these home owners through the bankruptcy process. the problem is that it would expose the banks to the amount of money that they have in these bad loans as well as the investment companies. guest: the banks have written down a lot of these bad assets. a loaded question from a public policy standpoint.

some believe the quickest way to find a bottom in this market is to rip the band-aid off and to get the market to stabilize as quickly as possible. there are others that would save by doing that, there is a fairness aspect for a number of homeowners, moving them through a bankruptcy proceeding like that would be a significant blow to the housing market as well as to homeowners psyche at this point. host: which the people be watching for that spells trouble or progress? guest: watched those numbers around for closure, particularly in the first half of this year and see where they

are heading and to see if the government has policies going forward. consider to watch what is going on with home prices in general. just watch it whenever from month to month does not give a trend. when people say that home prices have come out by 0.2%, there is a lot seasonal issues going on. be careful what you are watching. >> the south carolina presidential primaries on saturday. today the candidates were campaigning throughout the state. rick perry was that the vfw, then newt gingrich talked to voters in west columbia, south carolina. later, william kristol of the weekly standard weighs in on the republican presidential race.

>> only those who have shown resolve to defend freedom of the west can be trusted to safeguard its in the challenging turbulence and unpredictable times that lie ahead. [applause] mr. president, the decade and century that opened up before us must see the lasting triumph of liberty are common calls. the world needs written, and britain needs us. >> nicknamed the iron lady by the soviet media 1976, corporate times currently being portrayed on screen by meryl streep. watch the real iron lady online at the c-span video library. more than 100 appearances. >> clearly there are some countries in the common market who would like to hand over some of their financial affairs to a european central bank, and

divest their parliaments of much of their powers. that is not our view. we do not wish to hand over power to other bodies. >> it is what you want, when you want. >> republican presidential candidate repairing continues his south carolina campaign. earlier, he hosted a town hall at a vfw post. he is introduced by state representative alan clements at this one hour event. >> how are you? >> if you did great. >> we had a little fun last night. there you are. >> thornberry, good to see. >> thank you all for coming out.

>> stay right where you are. don't get up. thank you all for being here. we appreciate you. could morning to you. thanks for coming out. >> we were just talking about -- [unintelligible] we auctioned off once a and ended up on ebay, and we bought it back. thanks for what you are doing out there. how are you, sir? it is good to be here with you. thank you for coming out. ♪ thank you for coming out. rick perry, how are you.

thank you for coming. there he is, the navy then. good to see you, sir. >> good morning, governor. >> thank you for coming out. that is all right. how are you? >> we have georgetown, just north of austin. >> i am from stanford, connecticut. >> thank you for coming out. thanks for your service. we were over at georgetown. that is a pretty little place, just a gorgeous town. we really enjoyed the time we spent over there. we walked down -- we got a pretty good tour.

then we drove back through the town and those big oak trees, i have to think that is a great city to live in. >> i was away from it for 26 years, serving in the army, and i was glad to get back. >> thank you. rick perry, how are you? [laughter] we cannot be tired until saturday. >> i am fine, thank you. >> we had fun last night. >> governor, how are you? >> thank you for coming down here.

mike was here last night. cassell will have to do long introduction of mike. he is entry bge he is easy to introduce. -- he is easy to introduce. >> ladies and gentlemen, i want to thank you all for being here with us today. what a great opportunity we have got in south carolina at the vfw to meet a couple of great americans. we have a fine pair here. this pair will be a full house any day. ladies and gentlemen, i had the opportunity some months ago to be present at republican national governors' association winter meeting. it was in park city, utah.

i was helping a friend of mine who works out at park city and he runs a sleigh ride business. he invited me to go up with him. he said there might be some people there you want to see. sure enough, there is one of the first persons that decides to drop -- jump into that horse- drawn sleigh, it is governor rick perry. i had had rick perry on my mind for quite some time. i had known him from the 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, he brought more jobs into texas than any other state court in the union. i had been thinking for some time that is what america needs.

america needs a job creator. american need someone, a ceo of this country that knows how to get the government out of the way of doing business. and get the 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 who has created more jobs than any governor of the country? who better than the governor that shares a common border with mexico? 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 allen, i am praying for that right now, and i hope to have a decision soon. his decision brings us here

today, and i am so proud, i am so proud to call rick perry my friend. he is 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, the vfw welcome to our friend, governor rick perry. [applause] >> thank you very much. allen has to go back to the state house, so i told him to get on back up there and earn your money today. god bless you, and thank you for being here, and to all of you for coming out on a nice, overcast morning. it is real honor for me to get to be traveling with some of the people i am traveling with today. i will tell you, mike and i have known each other a long time.

a young fellow i have known even longer than that is my son, griffin perry. i thank you for coming out. it truly is, to be in the vfw, to be surrounded by men and women who really understand the freedoms -- that freedom is not free. the cost of that, a lot of people talk about, but you all understand to the core of your heart. in your soul, you understand, because you have made that sacrifice. as the old profit, isaiah, when god was asking who is going to go for us, who is going to represent us? he held his hand up and said here am i, send me. those of you in here, when your country needed to, you held your hand up and said, here am i, sent me. that is such a powerful display

of love, of devotion, of honor. it is one of the reasons that i tell young people, there is a lot of ways you can serve your country. there is a lot of ways you can volunteer to give back. but wearing the uniform of your country, i put as one of the highest levels of service. 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 heavy research to find it on a map, unless it is texas road map. i had it put on the texas road map, but it is about 200 miles west of fort worth texas, and it is pure rural, dry land, and forming. a little school out in the middle of a cotton pad.

the form to market road posed by and there are two churches, a methodist church in a baptist church. you had two choices. it was a great place to grow up. i scout master was also my superintendent of sunday school and also the president of the school board. he was a 1932 graduate of texas a&m and was part of patton's third army. he regaled us with the exploits of those individuals during world war ii. my greatest privilege and live with that i was the son of the be-17 tail gunner. these were the people who helped develop the values and principles that i live my life by. there were people who understood those concepts of selfless sacrifice. they are the ones who taught me the values of conservatism from

the standpoint of whether it was confirming our money or whether it was good serving our water. i grew up in a house that did not have indoor plumbing, so conserve and water was a big deal. taking a bath and a number to washtub does not take you long in the wintertime on the back porch. i am a hard-core conservative when it comes to that. i was conserve water back in those days, i just did not realize that is what i was doing. that is 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. they and their friends, my dad was a vfw member, obviously, and we would go to the american

legion post as well. we would see individuals and talk about that our country is strong because we have a strong military. it is because of the selfless sacrifice, the individual who volunteered to serve our country. my dad will be 87 in april. he has been a county commissioner for about 28 years and he understood about service. service to your country, your state, or your community. my dad said your responsibility is to give back to your country. there are people who came before you who sacrificed. that is your responsibility, to serve in the military, to serve your community or your state. i am standing before you today -- i live a purpose driven

life, and it goes back to my father, my mom, and people who understood that you give back. that is what this country is really based upon, giving back. no other way reflect that better than men and women who have worn the uniform. it is such a powerful message that we continue. dad and i were talking the other day and he still pays a lot of attention -- i just love my dad. he taught me so much. he said you know, the government is supposed to do three things really well. they are supposed to secure and defend our borders and deliver the mail, preferably on saturdays and on time. i said they do one of those pretty well. but two out of three is not good

enough. it really is a reflection of where we find ourselves today, with a country that is allowing its federal government to get so big and onerous and impact us could as the government its bigger and bigger in washington d.c., our liberties get smaller and smaller. from my perspective, that is what this election is really about. obviously, coming to the vfw today, traveling with mike, being around those of you who have served our country, and making sure we continue to support the young men and women of our armed services is of paramount importance, and how we take care of them -- we were just talking about, he has been such a sacrificial man all of his life and continues to help

these young veterans coming home who are impacted in a number of ways. it is one of the things i have focused on and make sure that we do in the state of texas -- of long that state. i challenge other governors. you need to put programs in place that sent the message that your state respects and supports and helps those young men and women who are coming home. whether it is making sure you have policies in place from an economic standpoint so that they can find a job when they get home, all too often these kids, particularly over national guard troops they get pulled in and out, they comeback. we make sure their jobs are being held for them in the state of texas. we make sure that when they come home, what they have learned in the military can be transferred over into college credits

without them having to sit there and ride it out at a community college or one of our universities, so they get credit for the technical things they have learned. it makes a huge difference and gets them into the work force to transition into that civilian work force. we give our veterans who are disabled -- if you or 100% disabled in the state of texas, you do not pay any property-tax 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. it is not just a memory or a parade very i believe the

president of the united states ought to be able kasay when you come home from military service, we are going to have a parade to thank you. but there are other ways to do it. there are other ways that a more concrete that last longer than the memory of people saying thank you for your service. i want these individuals who are coming home, particularly those who have been wounded -- i want to offer this for the country to consider, a wounded warrior tax exemption. if you have been wounded, if the dod has designated you as an individual who has been wounded while you were on service to the united states, you get a five- year exemption from paying any personal income tax in this country. [applause] that is sending a message.

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

i understand, not only having worn a uniform, but also having been the commander in chief for the last 11 years, the impact it has, not just on our warriors, but also on their families. at the president of the united states, our sons and daughters will not be sent into a conflict unless there is a clear and compelling reason for us to send them in. 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. [applause] that is the commitment i made to the men and women, not just in the military, but the men and women of this country. i want to talk just a second about the campaign we are going through and the issue that i think is on a lot of people's

minds. that is obviously the economy. as alan share with you, i have had the great privilege to oversee the 13th largest economy in the world over the course of the last 11 years. we created more jobs than any other state in the nation, over a million jobs have been created in my home state. i cannot 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 cannot overtax and over regulate and expect of entrepreneur is to continue to go risk their capital when they don't know what the next shoe to drop is. when the regulatory climate is eating them alive and the compliance cost chris just chewing up the profits, of course they are going to sit on

their money. that is what is happening in america today. people have lost confidence. they have lost confidence in washington d.c. we have an administration that looks at energy policy and basically says, you all are going to have to learn how to use green energy. mr. president, i don't have anything against green energy. wind and solar and other alternative fuels, i don't have a problem with that. but washington, d.c., doesn't need to be forcing americans and saying here's the energy you are going to use. the president said prices are going to go up because we are going to green sources of energy with no regard to what's it going to cost. washington, d.c., doesn't have to mandate to the american people. quit trying to pick winners and losers. the market will do that, mr. president. let us decide. we need to build a pipeline from canada down to the united states so we can have that oil refined into energy for america's use.

open up the pipeline, mr. president. create the jobs. \[applause] >> when the unions are building that pipeline, he's on the wrong side of the issue, period, quit listening to the environmentalists. they aren't going to leave that oil in the ground in canada. the other way it will go is to the west, to china. so pick one, mr. president. is it going to be china or going to be the united states? the pipeline has been studied for three years and one of the safest pipelines ever built, 20,000-plus jobs and $5 billion to the states in resources. this is a no-brainer. build the pipeline and open up our federal lands and waters. we have 300 years' worth of energy in this country. that is a powerful, powerful

message. we can be independent of those countries that don't have america's best interest in mind. but we have to have a president that's committed to this country, committed to this country's energy independence, committed to this country's military, committed to the young men and women. i see dr. hatfield and hold your hand up. this is the head of the school of military history at the university of texas and one of the great military historians in the world. dr. hatfield, thanks for coming with us. you ask him any question on military history, and i appreciate you being with us today. he and i have been on

magnificent trips to normandy and powerful influence on our young men and women back in my home state. mike, i wanted to take a moment, and as we wrap up here, i'm not going to talk a lot about mike. he was here last night. you all know his story. anybody that has that blue ribbon around your neck and that star, mike thornton truly is an american hero. his service to our country in the united states navy, navy seal. when you read his citation, the one thing that jumped out at me, i suppose in the last century at least, the only medal of honor recipient to save the life of another medal of honor

recipient, tommy norris, whose live he saved in that mission back in vietnam in 1972 was extraordinary. give it up for him. mike thornton, ladies and gentlemen, a great american and a south carolinian of some repute and he is living in the state of texas but from the state of south carolina. \[applause] >> there were two residents from the south of south carolina and ended up at the alamo together and travis was the commander of the alamo and bottom was a lawyer from a wonderful family and it's those people -- it's south carolina knows how to grow patriots.

you have done it from 17 70's in the revolutionary war through all of the different conflicts that we have had in this country. south carolina knows how to grow patriots and heroes. and one of yours from whitestone, south carolina, mike thornton. >> thank you. it's great to be back among our friends. thank you. many of the ladies have served our great nation, too, in uniform and i say a special thanks to the spouses that are here and what they do for this nation because people don't understand the sacrifices our spouses have made as we travel the world to keep our nation free. i have been to 76 countries in my life.

thank each of you for being here. i have known lynn for years and years and my helped start the spartanburg post in 1968 and he signed my piece of paper and i became a lifetime member of the v.f.w. and still on the roster up there and my good friend dave moorehead is here, too and we thank you for your leadership up there and what you have helped with the state. ladies and gentlemen, i served this great nation for almost 26 years and i retired the navy seal team and a navy seal will be a hit man for the mamafffa and i started a security company. i moved to texas when i met rick perry 16 years ago. rick is a doer and what he does, he surrounds himself with

great people and people have the answers and rick gives up on the point, he moves forward. what he has done his past 11 years as governor, not counting the jobs, but what he has done for the men and women in the great state of texas and what he continues to support, rick, how did you do this and he tells them and they have taken that and projected to their states and they have raised the awareness for our military veterans. we have the greatest country in the world and we have veterans and 26 million are living in this this country and stand as one and keep this nation safe and free for our children and grandchildren and their future as americans. and people don't look at it that way. we have to be strong and stand up for what's right because it's the right reasons. all of us went to war, we went to war for our nation but for

each other. the medal i wear belongs to each and every one of you. it be longs to the ones who fought before me as i met several of the world war ii vets, but it be longs to the guys welcoming home from vietnam. we can't change the past, but we sure as hell can make the future better for our young men and women and that's what rick does in the state of texas. we have retirement homes, we have new cemeteries and places that we can take care of these kids. and we have the outreach for different organizations that want to support all veterans. no matter if you were from vietnam, world war ii, vietnam, desert shield, desert storm, we are moving forward to take care of our veterans and that's the type of leadership that rick does.

what he does with the economy is unbelievable. the job situation there and i have been all over text and veterans when they come out and retire and in places like fort bliss, texas and around houston and retire in that great state of texas because they have someone who cares about their retirement, someone who cares about their life after the military. someone hoist going to care this will the end of their life and somebody cares about their families and their children. and they will have a place that will be free and will continue to grow. i'm not going to stay up here much longer, but my home state of south carolina is the place i love. where my father's buried and where my mother lives and my brother lives in greenville and sister and brother-in-law live in start tanburg and my grandchildren live in carolina beach.

we have had a lot of great americans -- like williams who was a medal of honor recipient. there are more medal of honor recipients since 1906 in the state of south carolina than any other state in the united states. \[applause] >> because the people of south carolina care and they understand and they are going to fight for what's right. and with your support and your vote, i would like to ask the next president of the united states to come back up here, rick perry, to answer some of your questions. god bless you, god bless your families and god bless america. thank you very much. \[applause] >> mike thornton, ladies and gentlemen. that is what our country is all about, men and women who understand that freedom is not free, there is a great cost.

when he went back in across the field of battle to go get tommy norris, you know, the commonsense brain was saying don't go back in there because this guy is dead, that's what he was told and he said just like james butler bond, who was stopped as he had left to go find out the question whether reenforcements were coming to the a lmp amoo and why are you throwing away your life away? he said buck travis needs to know the answer to his question and his request. and in the book "lone star," he spat on the ground, spun his horse and rode into i am mortality. mike thornton represents everything that's good about

those people of south carolina like james butler bond, an individual, he went back in. he saved a life. he made a difference. he continues to make a difference. he continues to save lives with the service he gives today. having people like mike thornton stand up beside me and say, listen, i want this man to be the president of the united states. it matters. it's a powerful message. having the newest medal of honor recipient has endorsed us as well. the young navy seal who wrote the book "lone survivor," they will be here on thursday, having those individuals, dan moran, a young marine, who has gone through 30 different surgeries, hit by an i.e.d. in iraq and spent two years in brook army medical center.

i got the phone call one after phone from my classmates from texas a and m who was a major general in the marines and said i'm sending you one of your boys and probably won't make it because his lungs is burned so bad. third agree burns. and we looked after him, we looked after his wife. this young man is on the campaign trail with me. today. he's still in pain. he still has the demons that attack him, but he loves this country so much. he has an incredible christian

witness and he wants to help his friend, who he trusts and knows will lead this country be the president of the united states. so, mike, i want to say thank you to you and to your colleagues that have endorsed and working with us and for all of you here again, let me say thank you to the men and women who have served our country. your families who are here with you who kept the home fires burning and what a privilege it will be for me to be the president of the united states and the commander of chief of the greatest fighting force that the world has ever seen. god bless you and thank you. \[applause] >> let me open it up for any questions. kate dawson is your republican chairman here in south carolina. thank you for being here.

yes, sir. >> got some oil in texas? got in trouble sunday night. seems like they are talking to drilling for oil. could you tell us how much potential there is in texas, colorado and maybe some day we will have to drill off this coast. >> it's your coast. >> you are damn right. >> south carolina's call. every state makes that decision about whether or not off their shore and if a state wants to do that, but the federal government should never force you into a position -- that's one of the things that is a real tenet of our campaign, the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibited to it by the states are reserved

for the states respectively or to the people. basically our founding fathers understood that there were a few and enumerated powers that the federal government was supposed to be involved with. military and it would be good if they would skire our border. we have been fighting for 11 years trying to keep our border secure with mexico and our federal government has been a a failure at that. but this issue of allowing the states to be making the decisions about whether it's how to deliver health care, how to deal with environmental issues or energy policy, the state should be more engaged and involved and be the determining entity of that than one size fits all in washington, d.c.,.

yes, sir, with the plaid shirt. >> i like everything you tell me, i agree with all of it, but i have one small problem. first presidential debate and everybody standing up there and i watched everything you said except one thing and it bothers the -- i'm sorry. [unintelligible] >> there is a little misunderstanding there. this issue goes back to the issue of board security. the reason that south carolina is getting sued and the immigration law, reason that arizona is also fighting that

battle, reason these other states are having to deal with this issue of illegal immigration is because we have been forced to deal with this issue, because of the failure of securing that board. i don't get confused about where the real disease is. we are dealing with the symptoms. the disease is a federal government that has failed to put into place security measures to shut that border down and we know how to do it and we don't have the resources in the state of texas to do it ourselves. i deployed two gun boats to two lakes last month. we have texas ranger teams on that border that we pay for in the state of texas. this president has pulled our national guard troops off. they are less than 300 and not even on the border, 300 national guard troops for an 1,800-mile border.

that is irresponsible. we need thousands of national guard troops, thousands of national guard troops in preparation of training this border patrol that will be there day in and day out. we need the aviation assets that are available. the predatory drones to be able to shut that border down. if we don't, the issues, the symptoms of this disease are not going to go away. what happened in the state of texas is they decided that if young people were in our state because the federal government forces us to deal with this, forces us to get health care and give education and the people of the state of texas said, how are we going to deal with this? are we going to have tax wasters or taxpayers? and the legislature said we're

going to require these young people to get in the line to become citizens of the united states and pay full in-state tuition to get educated in the state of texas so they are not tax wasters, and that's what the legislature did. only four difficult sentencing votes. that was text' call. remember our 10th amendment? if any other state, you decide that issue on your own. and i would never as a president of the united states try to impose anything like that on the states. that's the states' call. the people of the state of texas said economically, this is in our best interest rather than have tax wasters that we will have either in prison or welfare rolls because they aren't educated. that's how that happened in the state of texas. south carolina, free to deal

with it as they see fit. but the next president of the united states, who i hope is me, knows how to secure that border, and we will have that board shut down, locked down and there will be a stoppage of the drugs and the weapons and the illegal immigration within a year of me taking my hand off that bible. \[applause] >> i don't have a question but a statement. i was born and raised here. lived here my whole life but i was bred in the marine corps and i wanted to make a statement. as a 13-year-old kid i was going down the wrong path. at 17 years old, i decided i was going to join the marine corps and spent nine years in and real fast, real quick, i straightened up. and you, sir, are the reason that i'm voting for you because you are the person we need to

straighten us up. \[applause] a don perry, i'm sure we are relative. my question is is with the e.p.a. 14 years to build a coal-fired plant. just as they get started to open it up and start construction, e.p.a. stopped it. closing down probably the plant over -- the cross plant and they cleaned the i am purities out of the environment and use it to build gympsum board. what are we going to do with the e.p.a.? >> he gave a couple of examples

of how they are killing jobs and actually taking an amazing energy source away from the united states, 25% of all the coal in the world is in the united states. we are the saudi arabia of coal. we've got over 300 years' worth of energy in this country, yet as i said earlier, this president is trying to force this country to go into almost exclusive use of green sources of energy, regardless of the cost. and that's where i have a real problem. i don't have a problem with green energy. if the state of south carolina wants to put incentives into place to get the wind energy or alternative energy sources to come and proliferate here, that's their business. but the federal government shouldn't be doing it. if you need any other better example than a half billion dollars going to one company on the solar energy side, that

ought to answer your question about the federal government picking winners and losers in the energy business. not how our country works and we need to allow the market to decide those things. but the e.p.a. is the biggest job-killing agency in this country. i'll give you one example. we have had a clean air act. listen, this is our air, our children that are breathing it, our grandchildren that are going to be breathing it, griffin's children -- get on the ball, son -- \[laughter] >> when they inherit our state, i want that state's air to be cleaner than it is today and it can be because of programs we put into place in the state of texas, a flex i believe permitting program. we cleaned up our air more than any other state in the nation. any other state, we cleaned it up more.

but this administration said a year ago, they are going to come in and take over our process. our comptroller estimated their program they want to put in place will cost 360,000 jobs in the state of texas. they are about killing jobs because they are command and control. they want to control yourthey we from washington, d.c.,. that's why this election is so important, that we elect an individual who is an outsider. onen't think changing washington insider with another washington insider is going to make a difference. when i talk about a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and making congress part-time, it makes people real nervous and that's good. they need to be real nervous. our allies have to be competent and the enemies need to be nervous that we are going to have a strong military in place and the way we do that is have

an economy and the way you have an economy that is strong is neuter the e.p.a. when i talk about neutering the e.p.a. and pulling all the regulations, fess them, audit, if they kill jobs, throw them out. if it is a job-killing environmental regulation, because the fact is, those coal plants that you are talking about, they spent almost $100 billion of putting in the cleaning equipment to make sure that that emission moots the standards of this count -- meets the standards of this country. they want to kill the coal industry. that's their goal. and if we kill the coal industry in this country, we will be more indebted to countries like venezuela and hugo chavez and countries that don't have our interests in mind.

mr. president, let's have our friends and our domestic energy industry what we're focused on and if the alternative and the green energy sources can compete, god bless them, let them all do it. but all of those tax credits and all of those subsidies for all of the energy sector and listen one more question. one more question. yes, sir. >> radio station here yesterday was taking a survey and they wanted to know who we thought would be the next presidential candidate to cut and run if they did bad on saturday and my question would be if you do bad on saturday, will you cut and run? >> if you do good on saturday, i'll do good on saturday. you have my back on saturday and

i'll have your back in the next four years in washington, d.c.,. do we have a deal? god bless you and thank you for coming out here and being with us. [applause] >> all right, brother. >> what was your first car, by the way? 1967 pontiac calalina selling bibles. 389, with that 400 -- >> they made a 389. >> oh, yeah. >> two-door. 26 gallon gas tank. it was a land yacht.

it was canary yellow. i remember it like -- i was the proudest boy in texas. summer of 1969. i was going into my sophomore year of college. [overlapping] >> thanks for being here. i appreciate it. >> i have three of them. eagle scouts. >> good for you, man. >> i know the value. >> good program. >> you are talking about shorten the terms of congress. >> we have to do it with a constitutional amendment. i'm not a constitutional lawyer, but what my i stink is that we can combine a balanced budget amendment to the

constitution and limit their time. >> every other year. we need odd year for 140 days. 600 a month. they go home and they are doctors and teachers -- there's a little bit of everything. they are part of our state. we have a balanced budget amendment to our constitution and they pass the laws that need to be passed and go home. >> great idea. >> that's how our founding fathers wanted it. this full-time congress put it in by stat out. -- statute.

>> thank you. don perry. what little bit i know, there were three brothers that came over here in the late 1600's and one of my -- going back and he was born in 1760 and he was a young 16-year-old who fought in the american revolution. but they were north carolina. >> somewhere down the line -- >> i just want to say thank you, sir. >> we were talking last night and bobby, says -- >> appreciate it, sir.

>> i love your comments. my daughter lives in houston and we are pulling for you. >> she lives in houston? >> yes. going to see her in a couple of weeks. keep up the good work. thank you kindly for all you are doing. >> governor, when i walked in this door here this morning, i have been a newt gingrich supporter, but i'm walking out this door a perry supporter. >> god bless you, sir. >> i appreciate what you will do as our president. >> thank you, sir. >> i would like you to get rid of the caccoon around washington. >> they are either an insider and that place isn't going to change.

my purpose in life has never been to be the president of the united states or get rich but serve my country. >> we need you there. >> one last question for you, how did you bake out with your back surgery? i just went through it, too? >> i was off running for 10 weeks and how much we run in the last three days? 12 miles. mine's done and i hope you have good luck with yours. >> second time around. >> like getting married, you only need to do it one time. >> good for you. >> i have a marine and air

force. he is in wisconsin. >> your daughter? >> she was a nurse. >> i'm married to a nurse. >> god bless you. thanks for coming out today. >> say hello to george strait when you get back. [laughter] >> i have a question. >> president obama is now trying to take the small business administration and commerce department and make one department. i was a veteran champion of the year for region two and they are all talk, no substance. what are your plans? they do nothing. i was a small businessman. >> deal away with them.

if you con sole dailt agencies -- consolidate agencies and like the e.p.a., i would substantially reduce the size of it and be a repository of best practices and let it work out differences between states if there are issues like power lines or what have you. department of interior, department of agriculture, probably consolidate those two together. but department of education, do away with it. idea that the federal government has a thing to do with education, that's foreign to me. that's a state issue. >> he wants this to make another cabinet position. >> best thing we can do is eliminate -- >> thank you.

>> ok, cowboy. >> bless you. hopefully we'll surprise a lot of people on saturday. much obliged. >> come on. get in here. one, two, three. got it? >> i come from a long line of military. >> tell them thanks for their service. >> how are you? >> are you from spartanburg? [laughter] >> yes, sir. >> much obliged, yes, sir.

yes, sir. god bless you, thank you. >> yes, sir. let me sign it. there you go. thank you. >> yes, ma'am. there you go. there you go. now we're cooking. >> yes, sir. thank you for being here.

god bless you. everything's good. let me check in. >> study, ok? we've got a deal. captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> leading up to the south carolina primary, our road to the white house coverage takes you live to events of this week. >> we need to eliminate time and

programs. cut them and send them back to the states. remove the federal oversight and let the states have flexibility to deliver these programs. we have brought to the forefront, others have talked about it. they get in office and they do nothing. right now it is this liberty movement which is seen as patriotic. it is saying to the country, we have had enough of sending our money around the world to be the policeman of the world. hit this time to bring them home. >> and they get out among the public. >> we feel very good about that.

the conservatives are coalescing about our campaign. that is going to be good for us. >> find more video at c-span .org. >> newt gingrich attended a town hall in west columbia. he told voters he is best qualified to take on president obama in the fall. polls show him in second place in south carolina trailing mitt romney. this is 50 minutes. >> he might take d.c., if you don't mind. seat, ifght atake a you don't mind. i want to take this opportunity to welcome you here. also, i want to let you know that after last night, and the

performance the speaker dave, he wanted me to decide, there is no doubt to can turn this country around and lead us back to the great nation we are! he talks about jobs and the only jobs! i think he can be the architect of the american dream once again in america. it is my privilege to introduce our party chairman. >> thank you for coming out. i appreciate it. i am the chairman of the party for another three weeks. i have been hesitant to get involved in the campaign but this is a pivotal race. i felt like it was incumbent to pick somebody.

do what i can to change this country by electing a good president. the reason i'm endorsing newt gingrich's because he gets things done. he has done what he set out to do. he did more than that. when he went in, and he wanted to be speaker of the house. there had not been a republican majority in 30 years. then he did the budget, welfare reform, with opposition the hallway. i'm excited we have somebody who knows how to get things done. how about the debate? i have been in a lot of debates in my life. this is the first time i have seen one where there was a standing ovation by everybody in the house. it was all made -- amazing.

i decided to endorse him and i believe we have a congressman from arizona that is going to introduce the speaker. if you would, please welcome the congressman from arizona. [applause] >> i cannot tell you what day honor it is to be here with all of you. i know each one understands that the eyes of history and the world, maybe even the founding fathers are on so carolina right now. islander stand you know we are in day destiny-shaping year -- i understand you know we rare in a destiny-shaping year.

if president obama is reelected, we could see iran gain nuclear weapons. if he is reelected, i am afraid that the european socialism will gain an unbreakable hold on this nation and we will be forever diminished. everything we love is at stake. i'm not trying to say how important it is but it is the most important we have had in my lifetime. for those of you this of the debate last night, you know newt gingrich has a unique capability unlike anyone else in this race. when the left posits questions that have intrinsic fallacies, and he is able, and he is gifted and able to turn that around and expose those fallacies and answer the question in the way that every day americans understand. emerson said that what lies

before espy and -- before us and behind us is small matters. and gingrich's able to articulate the causes of america better than anyone else. if south carolina does the right thing, you will not -- he will go want to be president and there will be hope for my children and yours. would you welcome the next president of the united states, commute to increase. -- newt gingrich. [applause] ♪

>> i was just asking the sheriff how he gets reelected. that is a long, remarkable career. i am delighted to be here. i really appreciate my good friend trent frank who has been a tremendous leader in the pro- life movement. he has been helping us carry the message. rich, and thank you for having helped us. thank you for your support and friendship. i want to start, the white house today, said that my comments last night about president obama being the the best food stamp president in american history, and he seemed to disagree with. i know the white house is

isolated from reality but i want to make a point. first of all, it is a statistical fact. president obama is the most effective personal putting people on food stamps. that is just a fact. second, i suggested that the president's policies might have something to do this. he said, we inherited the worst economy since the great depression. i think that is fair. ronald reagan inherited a terrible economy and turned it around within three hours. [laughter] hinder stood that dietrich was not to spend your first term blaming the past but creating the future. -- reagan understood that you did not spend your first term blaming the past but creating the future. i was told somebody they were

shifting from yes, we can to why we could not as their slogan. let me be clear so the white house understands. when the president adopts a stimulus package as hundreds of billions dollar pages that nobody has read and then that the shovel-ready jobs were not ready. and the stimulus fails but leaves this deeper in debt, at some point he has to take responsibility. that was his plan and proposal and it failed. when the president adopts an anti-american energy policy, they claimed they were lifting the moratorium in the gulf and replacing it with a permit system but we're not issuing permits. -- were not issuing permits.

the american people are not that dumb. this is an anti-american presidency. he goes to brazil congratulating them on a developing oil offshore and telxon -- tells them we will give them money from a george soros-backed company. i thought he had it backwards. we do not send the president to be a purchasing agent for foreigners. he should be a salesman for american goods and services. [applause] the president's press secretary should come down to charleston and look at the boeing plant they tried to close. every time you turn around, this administration pushes against american business and jobs,

against energy, and then seem surprised they're putting people on food stamps. they think it is an accident of nature. baloney. the environmental protection agency kills jobs. they're looking at a proposal that would raise the cost of gasoline by 25 cents per gallon. 2011 was the most expensive gasoline in american history, on average. the idea your government would add 25 cents a gallon more tells you how out of touch with reality they are. i would prefer to replace the epa with a brand new solution agency that had to use common sense and be aware of the economy as part of this decision making process. [applause]

the reason i want to -- i think this will be one of the three biggest issues of the campaign. you are going to have a paycheck president and a food stamp president. i worked with ronald reagan to develop supply side economics. we ended up passing it into law in 1981. at the time people called it voodoo economics. it only had one virtue -- it works. the fact is, it is a simple model, cut taxes, develop energy, and encourage the people who make jobs. reagan cut taxes, obama raises them. riging cut regulations. obama is against american energy.

obama believes in class warfare. what was the historic result? 16 million new jobs in the reagan hears. -- years. [applause] consecutive tax increases. i thought both of them. by 1994 the economy was flattening out. we won the election. we went back to the reagan playbook. we cut regulations and reform welfare. the child poverty went down because parents were working, increasing their income. learning how to get a job. we cut spending. we cut taxes for the first time in 16 years including the

largest in history. the result was, we created 11 million new jobs. unemployment dropped to 4.2%. as a result of cutting spending to increase taxes, we had more revenue without a tax increase because more people were at work. we balance to the federal budget for four consecutive years. the only time you have seen that done in your lifetime. i am prepared to run a campaign between president obama as a food stamp president and newt gingrich as someone who has created jobs. i think we will be competitive in every neighborhood. i do not care of the ethnic background, historic background, if you say to parents, would you rather be dependent on the government or independent because they have a

paycheck, parents are going to get a paycheck and have a better future. [applause] the second issue is going to be the question of values. i believe in the declaration of independence, 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 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 rights. this is what american exceptionalism is all about. 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 -- name 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 backwards. friends have it exactly 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 -- declaration 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. lasthat's why i suggested 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. -- 99 weeks. 9 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.

[applause] 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. 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 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 nominee -- saturday, and i become the [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. [laughter] 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. [applause] 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.

-- white house will become 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, you mentioned that the founding fathers have said we are all created equal as man. and you have support for israel. my question is on foreign policy. you mentioned that the palestinian people -- what do suggest should happen to them? should they become israeli citizens? the other question is, i know south carolina is 60% and evangelical. my question is, the governor is from indian heritage. we have a catholic. would you support a muslim- american for president?

or would you endorse at some point in the future a muslim- american could be running for president given we had a woman and we had a jewish-american. >> it would depend on whether they would commit to give-ups sharia. i am totally opposed to sharia law. in fact i favor a her fragile law that pre-empts it. -- federal law that pre-empts said. we have a friend in arizona who serves in the navy who is muslim but he is a modern person trying to find ways to bring islam into modernity. when you realize that the rising islamization of

turkey has resulted in women being killed. when you look at churches being burned in nigeria and the decline of christians in iraq from 1 million to 100 -- 500,000. it depends on the person. if they are a modern person, and they're prepared to recognize all religions, that is one thing. if they demand we respected them while they refuse all-out a jew or christian to worship, that is something different. we need a president to tells the truth and redo -- rejects an effort to impose a sense of guilt because we are prepared to tell -- tell the truth. i'm opposed with your organization of islamic countries were seeking to sensor any comment about islam. it is a fundamental violation of our right as free speech. it truly modern person who

happened to worship allah would not be a threat. any kind of effort to impose sharia would be a threat. [applause] the palestinian question is a good one. this h -- if hamas would hunt down and stop the terrorists, i would favor peace with the palestinians. i would favor an independent state. an ability for them to become prosperous. in november, 11 missiles were fired. that is not a peace process. that is war. position is the extinction of israel. you do not have negotiations with that. i think we have tolerated for too long terrorist activities disguised as diplomatic behavior. i think the palestinian people

should flow -- throw out the folks who want to destroy israel. that means giving up the right of return. there is no natural right of return. critics have no right to return to turkey. in eastern germany to poland. polish to russia. we have brought all sorts of changes. the only place is against the state of israel to destroy israel. there is no right of return. let's negotiate the future. [applause] >> mr. speaker, i am from falls church, virginia. those of us who are retired enjoy a 4/10 of 1% on our

savings. five years ago we were getting 5%. given these circumstances, would you reappoint ben bernanke as chairman of the reserve? >> i have said that i would ask him to resign. then i would ask the congress to fire him. i think he is not a good chairman. i also have announced i would appoint a commission to look into golden heart mining. we ought to have -- gold and hard money. we have had a time of inflation that has eroded the value of our money. that is bad. the founding fathers created the constitution to get to sound money. which you have today is pumping trillions of dollars of paper into the world economy.

there is a report that the fed has been covertly trying to help prop up the europe. the united states has no reason to prop up the germans while they try to prop up the greeks. if the germans want to euro to succeed, let them pay for it. we have no reason to prop up germany. it is a game they have been playing more they have propped up their export market. now they want to tie us into their problems. we should not do that. we should seal off our banks and protect our institutions and tell the europeans they have to solve their own problem. [applause] >> mr. speaker, i have a question -- everyone can agree our number one goal is to make sure we do not have four years of obama. how can you repair the candidate

to be viable against obama? >> i would say the opposite. if we cannot nominate a candidate to go against obama, we have a problem. nothing that has been done so far, the negative ads against me, those various things that ron paul does, none of those things are tough. not compared to what is coming. you have a chicago machine that is going to have a billion dollars. this is part of why they filed a lawsuit. you only had 600 people -- dead people voting. that is below quota. how would we ever win? you would expect a chicago machine, a ruthless campaign

this fall. the answer is to nominate someone tough enough to stand toe to toe with obama. that is the reason -- if you look at the debates we have had and you ask yourself, it is october. who do you want on the podium? the you want somebody who is a moderate to was close enough to obama? how are we going to distinguish romneycare? you want somebody like reagan was with carter. you want a real conservative against a real radical. most of his billion dollars will fall harmlessly. and you are still four paychecks and he is for food stamps. you are still for national security and he is for weakness. you are for exceptional is a man he is for european socialism. -- exceptionalism and he is for

european socialism. [applause] >> hey, newt. thanks for being here. i am having a hard time deciding who to vote for in the primary. >> i can help. [laughter] >> i really want to vote for you. i am going to say this -- i want to clear this up. i have seen your ads. you talk about how many jobs you created as speaker back in 1994. we all know, and you have said, that the government does not create jobs. the private sector does. it sticks in the a little bit.

i wanted to clear it up. it sounds like something that democrats would say. >> look, it is 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 do not do that. in 1960,, and south korea had the same per capita income. today south korea is the 11th wealthiest in the world. the rules matter. detroit has been badly governed by politicians. it has collapsed. it went from no. 1 in income and 1,800,000 people to fewer than

800,000 people. over half of its housing is empty. it is a human tragedy caused by bad government. when you have a bad government, obama-quality, destroying banks, a president blocking you from developing oil and gas, the only reason north dakota has 2.3% unemployment is because the oil they found was of private land. otherwise they would not have developed either. they discovered they have 25 times as much oil as the u.s. geological survey thought they had. the same thing will happen offshore. all of our information is 30 years old. we have no modern service. i am suggesting that somebody who wants to create jobs can cut taxes in the right way.

bring in huge amounts of money. so you can write off all new equipment in one year so have the most modern workers in the world. we have a 12.5% corporate tax rate. all of these things are really, really, very helpful. we abolished the death tax so family businesses do not have to worry about the federal government. not fear they have to go to the undertaker and the irs. we have an option of flat tax. that means this is a hong kong model. it means that if you want to keep your tax code with the various breaks, fine. it is also paper work. if you want to fill in one page, i have this number of dependents, you can do your taxes on one page. you choose which is better for

you. that gives us a sense of the right way to approach this. we can take one last question. >> i am john butcher. the mainstream media would lead us to believe that the american people once the folks in washington to compromise and get something done. given the environment in washington, socialist vs. free enterprise, how you compromise with a socialist? >> i think they have the wrong formula. i made some controversy because i gave a speech to the heritage foundation and said i will cooperate but not compromise. when reagan was elected, a tip o'neill was speaker of the house. when i became speaker, we had bill clinton. i had to get his signature.

we passed welfare reform twice and he vetoed it. you have to negotiate. the key is, what is it that matters? and what does not matter? is there something the other guy wants that would lead them to work with you? it requires a great deal of creativity but if you look at the track record in the 1980's with reagan and with clinton, you can get it to work. i am appalled that obama getting washington to work. i am not exempting the republicans. this guy has no concept of how to negotiate for bring people together. you do it his way or he makes another speech. i will close with his example. the web-warner bill on developing oil and gas, republicans in the house should pass it.

if the republicans would pass it, it would go to the senate. how does harry reid stop a bill written by two of his members? now you would have a bill creating energy, revenue, the senate would pass it at that point. it would go to the president has a bipartisan bill. in this economy, if you have a bill that increases energy, increases jobs, increases revenue to the government, even obama would have a hard time vetoing it. you have to be creative and persistent but you can get the system to work if you have a vision of where you are going. i'm going to come down here. if people can come this way -- [applause]

>> i want every vote here. i want you to call, facebook, all of your friends between now and saturday. >> good luck. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> thank you for coming. >> we sure need your help.

can i get an autograph later? >> maybe later. thank you. thank you, sir. >> grey answers, by the way. -- great answers, by the way. >> thank you, sir.

>> nice to me he. -- nice to meet you. we appreciate it. >> thank you very much. thank you, very much you would get my vote. >> thank you very much.

>> is good seeing you again. >> you are the man. >> thank you so much. we're praying for you. thank you so much. i just decided to vote today. i've not made my mind up. >> i am doubly going to be

voting for you. >> what is your name. i need your help. >> you are a very smart man than. >> thank you. >> it is very nice to meet. cried thank you very much.

-- >> thank you very much. >> little coverage continues as republican candidates campaign in south carolina. that primary is on saturday. in early february, caucuses and nevada and a week-long one is in maine -- mitt romney will campaign in in south carolina tomorrow. he will talk at a rally. live coverage at 11:10 a.m. eastern and c-span 3. >> up next, bill kristol talks about the republican presidential primary in guinness's take on ron paul's

candidacy. them president obama on jobs in the economy. after that, an interview with nancy pelosi. >> next comment bill kristol weighs in on the presidential race. this is 45 minutes. >> we're taught about the impact it could have on saturday. let me show you the carrier paid in south carolina. these debates have been getting

better. nine people is not a debate. it is a mob. there were five people on stage. 90 seconds would still be a little longer. there were some good exchanges between the candidates. it will probably not do well in south carolina. it is one reason why this race should go on a while. you learn something from them. it is good for them to go through this. i would like to see some debates after south carolina. it did not be bad for these debates to go on to february and march. you do learn of things. new issues come up. there's no rush to nominate someone. >> we can talk about south carolina and beyond.

debate, do you think it has an impact? guest: yes. if you watch it as a fair minded person, you did not think. perry was a margin honor figure. if you looked at romney, a sanatorium in being rich, i thought they were evenly matched. i think the romney supporters to save this, it is in three states enough tai want to get it done d want to consolidate before february 1.

i think that argument loses credibility. don't we trust of voters of other states? but the attempt to give romney the mantle of the inevitability took a hit last night. host: view think newt gingrich did? guest: he loves arguing and i think he did well. a good question was asked and newt gingrich did a good answer and that was the high point of the debate. i thought rick santorum was strong as well. rick santorum defended a position during the debate talking about former felons having the votes. it is not a huge national issue. it was a vote he cast 10 years ago.

it is probably not that popular a position. the reason it came up is that the romney super-pac attacked him on that. i think santorum was right to bring it up. it was unfair attack on him but he held his ground and defended the substantive position which shows the principle. it is not a popular position. mitt romney turned out to be a super hardliner on former felons. they should never have the votes? it is not a position that he ever argued for as governor of massachusetts. massachusetts is much more liberal than the position rick santorum took. even in virginia which is a law and order state, former felons can petition the governor with the expectation of given the vote back if they vote but -- be it well on probation and after.

it was a revealing moment and i thought santorum was clever in the debate with romney. is that really the view of mitt romney? i can't believe he is such a super hard-liner. host: let me go back to former speaker newt gingrich. let's show our viewers the moment you are talking about in case they misted between the moderator and the speaker -- [video clip] >> use of some of this in your visit to a black church in south carolina where a woman as to why refer to president obama as the food stamp president reddit sounds as if you are speaking to the little people. >> first of all, juan, the fact is that most people have been put on food stands by barack obama than any president in american history. [applause] i know among the politically correct, that is a fact that is

uncomfortable. [laughter] [applause] second, you raised a key point earlier that the area that should be 573 should be called -- was called a quarter of shame. as it improves? they have not built the roads and not the people and have not done anything. [applause] host: just on his performance last night, here is an e-mail from a viewer -- guest: look, i myself am uncertain who i will vote for in the republican primary. i will not clear who will be on

the ballot in virginia. i'm not really open on the wrong call issue. i don't agree with him on fundamental issues and i think rick perry will get out. gingrich is a fantastic debater but newt gingrich's approval rating in two big national polls lately is about 28 favorable-58 on favorable. ronald reagan never had numbers like that. you may love newt gingrich and i have worked with him for 25 years and i admire him and i like him. i think he would probably be a pretty good president but to have to ask yourself -- can he do so well in the campaign that we overcome such a gap? let's look at the other numbers -- present obama is at +2 ann romney is a +4. rex santorum was less well- known is about eight -4. they are all within the range. those kinds of numbers change. can you overcome where newt gingrich is? i would have real doubts about

whether gingrich could win. i think rick santorum, without all of the gingrich history, may be less flashy debater but without all of his history, you could make the case that he would be a stronger general election campaigner. host: we're talking about last night's debate in the gop presidential field. the numbers are on your screen

we also have a fourth line set aside for south carolina residents. we want to hear from you leading into saturday's primary. we have a republican, go ahead caller: i am concerned about how the guest is just dismissing ron paul. ron paul is very much against mr. kristol's agenda of these ongoing war startedmr. kristol is involved with the project for the new american century which advocated the war and laid out a plan for the war on terror. that included iran and syria. i'm a veteran. one of my brothers did two tours in iraq. i am sick and tired of guys like vests -- if i am not mistaken, mr. kristol was born in 1953 and then made an 18 in 1971, two years before the draft was ended and he could have gone to pushing for war.

i want to encourage all the listeners who can hear my voice to watch the documentary "the new american century." host: let's get a response guest: thank you for your service. i said i have a fundamental disagreement with ron paul on foreign policy. i could not vote for him personally and i think he is just wrong in his analysis. i respect people who have served in war because it is a terrible things. ron paul voted to authorize the war on terror and voted to authorize the war in afghanistan and he now speaks as if it was a terrible mistake.

it is unclear whether he is adjusting his view now. his true view is that we should not have gone to war at all and that we invited 9/11. he has hung out with an upraised people that that think 9/11 was an inside set up job. i have debated people on foreign policy i would be happy to debate ron paul and foreign policies. host: here is a cnn poll -- what do you make of that? guest: when a president runs for reelection as an incumbent, most of the votes are for him. guest: most of the voters about the incumbent president. i do think in the real race, when voters get to know the opponent better, and when they

really have to make a final decision, it makes a decision. ronald reagan had been demonized by his republican primary opponents in 1980 and by the media. he was able to reassure the public that he was the right person for the job and indeed of a beating carter pretty handily. i think the economy will be weak and any republican could wind. i think electability matters. you cannot just take a snapshot poll now and say who seems to be doing better. that is why these debates are interesting. they are debates and you get to see these guys handle themselves against challengers. president obama will be able to challenge them effectively and the general election. there'll be hundreds of millions of dollars of ads running against them. letting this go on so that we learn about the candidates is important. host: here is the "washington post" this morning with their poles. -- polls.

72% said mitt romney will win. guest: brawny is certainly the favorite. it shows that they are reading the newspapers and romney is tied in iowa and one new hampshire, and may well south -- and may well win south carolina. he has run before and republicans have a real history of nominating someone who has run before. bush in 1988 after he lost to reagan in 1980. i came in 2008 after a loss to bush in 2000. -- became the intent thousand eight after he lost to bush in 2000 -- mccain in 2008 after he lost to bush in 2000. barack obama, a first term senator from illinois, beat hillary clinton. that is a model for our republican primary might go.

it santorum wartell said gingrich anne romney, that would be analogous -- would upset gingrich and romney, that would be analogous. they generally nominate someone who has run before and has experience. it could be a good thing. you have run before and you learn how to do it. you introduce yourself to the voters earlier. it could be not a great thing, like republicans did with bob dole, a fine man. really impressive careers. they did not make good general election candidates. host: an independent. good morning. caller: i like to thank you for c-span. you're about the only people who

tell the truth. mr. bill is very good at distorting the facts. ron paul did excellent. he tore those guys up. he did stumble a little bit because they got four against one, but that is ok, we will still win. you said that it would be meeting certain places and you did not mention ron paul. i want to tell you where ron paul will be today. he is going to be in colombia, he is going to be there at 10:00 a.m., and in spartanburg on north church st., 2:00 p.m.. he will be at a holiday inn at 4:30 p.m. i like to add that all the other papers and the media do not want to cover ron paul. one paper in washington admitted that they had been wrong and it is on the computer if you want to look it up. host: go-ahead. guest: we cover him in the

"weekly standard." some of his conspiracy theories and there is a public website composite -- they have posted links to a lot of the letters that ron paul wrote when he was out of office in the late 1980's and early 1990's. they went out under the ron paul newsletter. he spoke about them at that time many now says he did not really write them or even read all of them. he certainly took credit for them and made money off of them. people should really read those. palisade that to this gentleman from conway. you may like some of the things that ron paul says but you should read these. really read up on what ron pollack said over the years. see if you're comfortable with someone who raises some any concerns and theories and place so fast and loose with the

facts. and a fundamental view of america which is not what most americans are most conservatives believe. host: michael in oklahoma, democratic line, go ahead. caller: i like to comment on what ron paul said last night in the south carolina debate. ron paul, he has is issues like anyone else, but at the same time, ron paul sees things as cutting drive. they're going to be putting all the political words and and they do not know what they're talking about. at the same time, ron paul is right when he says we need to clean up our own backyard before calling someone else's. with the military overseas, that is where all the money is going and, overseas. that's why we are in the mess that we iran. plus the housing market, that is another problem that got us in this mess. we did all of that and got that

all in order, maybe we would be a better america that we are now. host: we will let that stand as a comment. gary in oklahoma, go ahead. caller: and bill kristol, it is my first time to even talk to you. a question concerning gary johnson, the former governor of new mexico. all news, an old junkyard dog. he just keeps hanging around and it's too close, he will snappier right on the mind. i am one of those people that became a libertarian in 1980. the reason was that 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 so unconstitutional. it has ruined this country. it has proved the old concept about power corrupting.

host: what is your comment or question for bill kristol? caller: concerning gary johnson, he talked the talk and walk the walk in the republican voters did not follow up on him. just left him in the dirt. i do not understand it. he actually adhered and govern in so-called republican principles. guest: gary johnson was the governor of new mexico and i'm not an expert on how successful he was our was not. if iran is a very strong libertarian. -- he ran as a very strong libertarian. ron paul had more the face and was able to edge him out. i think he is a principal libertarian and i do not agree with him either, but he manages to articulate a libertarian view without the conspiracy maundering and without the imputing of bad motives to rivals, which ron paul does.

he just says that we want a fight and was wars. does he really believe that? does he think mitt romney and rick santorum get up and think, hey, let's send young men off to fight a difficult wars overseas, wouldn't it be great? he will not debate them, actually. ron paul talks about wanting to debate but he does not abate. i have never seen him engage in serious debate. i would be happy to debate him one-on-one on foreign-policy and others would, too. but he likes speaking to his own followers. he has built up a big network of its ears. a lot of people vote with him out of frustration with the system and he is telling it like it is. but honestly it is unfortunate. i do not believe he will get the nomination. he is getting a lot of publicity but people should look at his record and what he has said in a fast -- in the past and think seriously about if he is the kind of person they want leading this country.

host: this headline of the "new york times" this morning. some conservatives backed away from santorum. their meeting over the weekend, coming out of it saying, we are all coalescing around rex santorum and now it is coming out a couple of days later, no, no, no, if we think the ballot box of stuff over the weekend. guest: i do not believe that. i talk to people that were there of the weekend and there was no stopping of the ballot box. one person on ron paul pyrrole is saying that there was ballot box stuffing as that these people, these pastors and political leaders, that they are going to go along with this dishonest, men and women. i do not buy that for a second. there were a lot of newt gingrich supporters and rick santorum supporters there. i think it is fair to say, they're not telling anyone how above. they are reporting that there were more voters and supporters for rick santorum than newt

gingrich. they had agreed to try to come to -- to coalesce around one candidate. and in the end, more than two- thirds of voted for it santorum. -- of them voted for santorum. to say that there was a ballot box stuffing is an attack on the integrity of these men and women and it is unjustified. host: so is rich selling for on the 2 q anyone but ronnie" candidate? guest: no, because newt gingrich remains formidable. i think that they will stay in the race and i'm not desperate to get one of them out. romney may be better than both of them, but i do not think it hurts them to stay in. conservatives are panicking -- the establishment is succeeding in panicking conservatives.

fine, let's split the vote. let's say in south carolina mitt romney is 35% and newt gingrich is 25% and rick santorum is will get 20%. host: 25 delegates at stake. guest: paul will get a few and then they go on to the next contest and florida. at some point, it passed a narrow down. once april 1 in the winner- take-all states, then being first with a plurality starts to matter. running first is better than running second or third. i do not think it is really proper or i do not feel that i won the pressure either one of them to get our or to say that race would be over one gets out. that is not -- that is saying voters in a letter shapes our sheep. let them make up their minds. but the voters in south carolina make up their mind. i think last night's debate was

interesting. you would of thought after 16 debates you know everything about the candidates. but especially with your people on the stage, you learn things. host: an e-mail. guest: that was odd. i ask questions about different things, the betting capital, but over the course of the debates you have seen their approaches on economic policies. they do not differ that much, it is fair say -- fair to say. maybe in that respect, he is the riskier candida denominated you do not think the american public is willing to say a santorum said last night that millionaires getting social security maybe should not get their full social security payment has someone living off of it as their primary source of income.

i think we're seeing the differences. you get a little -- a lot of different issues and you do not get perhaps the sustained discussion on one topic that some people might want, but they can go to the websites and see that as well. host: from austin, texas. caller: during the debate, when mr. brown asked a question about mitt romney's father, he was booed. mitt romney grandfather in 1935 fled this country with his five wives to move to mexico, and basically denounced the country. mitt romney's father was born in mexico. i remember obama was running, it was all this stuff going on about his being a birther and stuff like that. it seems to me that of romney's

have a more questionable background. is he a citizen or not? host: before we get the answer, where did you read that information's? caller: i heard it on the right to maddow show. guest: i think barack obama is a citizen and mitt romney is a citizen. you're not responsible for which your grandparents are great grandparents did, obviously. i think it is a non-issue, frankly. host: lisa, an independent, you're next. caller: my comment was about the tax disclosure. i believe that the 20% of unemployed people in this country who have to allow a potential employer to look at their credit report is just as wrong as the people who think that is an invasion of romney's privacy to disclose his taxes.

host: we ask that of our viewers in the first 45 minutes. guest: in the custom, 76 candidates have disclosed their most recent tax forms at least. i think it is reasonable, and now people expected. they do not have to do it. the reason mitt romney said that he would do it in april, because that is when john mccain did it in 2008, mitt romney more than most candidates is running on his private sector record. it makes a little more sense for people say, let's find out more about the record. private equity and venture- capital firms are more secretive. it does not do them any good to have a huge amount of publicity.

they provide opprobrious closer to their clients, but not to the whole world. -- appropriate disclosure to their clients, but not the whole war. you obviously made a lot of money but we need to see a little bit about what you did s ceo of that firm. -- as ceo of that firm. he should do it during the primary process. i doubt that there is anything damning in them, but it would be nice to know now, not in april or may or june when the as some of the republican nomination. host: does it matter how much tax he paid or how he paid? guest: it matters a little bit. if he took advantage of perfectly straight for ways of various laws, that carried interest provision would have allowed him to claim capital gains.

host: which is capped at 15%. guest: since it was reduced below regular income in 1997. that is the case, i will not criticize him for that. he paid what he was supposed to pay. but people have to look at it and see what they want to make. host: to the republican line, bernie in brooklyn. caller: putting aside afghanistan for the moment, what is the current political rationale for keeping troops in korea and in europe? how do you feel about it? guest: there has not been a war in korea it for 60 years and longer than that in europe. except for the balkans. we do not have any troops there. it does not cost as much money. no more money than keeping them in the u.s. and if we have to deploy troops as we will have to do again, it is helpful to have bases in europe from which to deploy in germany, which is closer to afghanistan than we are.

it is helpful to have the ability in korea to deter the north koreans and to deter china from doing adventuresome things. i think ron paul goes on on how much it cost have these troops over the world. it does not cost very much. unless you do not want to have the troops at all. it sounds like he wants to bring the troops back home and at other times it sounds like he wants to cut the military as a whole by an awful lot because we should not ever intervene anywhere. that is a fair debate that have, but i do not personally believe that that is a good recipe for a safe world or united states of america. host: a tweet. guest: that was an exciting experiment with sarah palin. it did not hurt mccain at the end of the day. he lost by what he was going to lose by any way.

except for the two weeks when he went ahead. whether they handled it well or handled as well she might have, in los questions and endless debate. everyone seems to think that marco rubio would be a leading pig. i think that. i'm very impressed with him. there might be worries of picking someone new. he is only in his first term. it could be deterred by the example of sarah palin, a first term governor. you might pick someone like mitch daniels. i would tend to go young. i think against president, -- president obama, in a new era, i think marco rubio and paul ryan are the two stars in congress. among younger people, you want to double down on a sober, a senior statesman, mitch daniels, the very successful two-term governor for indiana.

i wish he had run for president. i wish they all had run and it would've been strong candidates. but i can see it romney were to win the nomination, deciding, they will attack you for being boring and not as young and the new generation, so i'll take mitch daniels and say, we know we're doing. we have experience. we are sober and sound. i could see him what daniels and rubio and paul ryan or someone else. host: a caller from massachusetts. caller: thank you for having me. it is interesting, i was watching the debates last night, and the fact is that i saw twitter overwhelmingly in paul's camp, whereas the other candidates did not fare very well. my question to mr. kristol, the difference between the debates and the public on what paul

could be so far out in front of the other candidates and it is interesting that romney in the rest are being pumped as william randolph hearst would talk about. and the other issue i like to ask you about, i see you go to the conspiracy theory in the things which mitigate the impact of what mr. paul says in terms of foreign policy and domestic issues. could you give me an example of a conspiracy theory that he thinks is viable which the other candidates will not stand for? guest: i am not exert what the last question is. i think he has a fondness for conspiracy theories, a small cabal that got us into these wars.

he has been on radio shows up to this past year of a man named alec zone, a leading 9/11 conspiracy theorist. he has praised him elsewhere. i think that is justified. people can look at all of his letters and what he has said over the years and the five -- decide whether he is a sober judge or if he has a tendency for conspiracy theories. i do not think any of the other candidates do. i do not know why people on twitter are more pro-paul than not. host: i think referring to the polls, too, the disconnect. guest: paul has done pretty well. he got 21% of the vote in iowa and about that in new hampshire. it certainly get his message out to the voters. he has raised a lot of money and has a lot of adds up, in his own name and the super pac, again santorum in particular heavy seas as a threat. paul is doing pretty well for

someone like him who i would say has views, if you're really dig down on them, that are pretty far removed from the mainstream of american conservative thinking. he is a big critic of ronald reagan's. most american conservatives think that was a good presidency. he was dismissive of all the efforts in 1994 and the republican revolution. all these other efforts to try to limit government without doing away with everything that has been done over the last century. he is a pretty big critic of almost everything done by government in the last entry. some people agree with that. i do not. host: let me go to congress and so this headline from the "washington post." and then this week from rick. -- tweet from rick. guest: mr. obama has done a good job of making it seem like it was controlled by the republicans. in the real world of governance, the house is 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 is unfair. life is unfair and you have to think about how to deal with it. i think the next year could be interesting on a hill. general consensus is the previous hour, from one of the magazines, i am not so sure that that is true. often people think nothing is going happen. often things happen when people think nothing is one happen, and vice versa. i can imagine speaker boehner and present are a, cutting deals, for example. i -- and president obama cutting deals for example. about our military and domestic spending, i think the whole congressional front will be interesting. we look at these presidential races and the jockeying in the debates. the real events happen in the real world. one of them in the previous

hour, europe -- what will happen with the european meltdown and how much will that affect the u.s. economy? while happy with iran? and what happens in congress? that could affect the general image of the president, of the republican party, and could affect the presidential race. host: let me get your reaction to what john huntsman said they say yesterday at his news conference announcing that he is no longer in this presidential race. "financial times," let's listen to what he said on that issue. [video clip]

>> at its core the republican party is a party of ideas. but the current toxic form of our political discourse does not help our cause. and it is just one of the many reasons why the american people have lost trust and their elected leaders. today i colony campaign to cease attacking each other -- i call on each campaign to cease attacking each other and talk to the american people about how our conservative ideas will create jobs, reduce our nation's debt, stabilize energy prices, and provide a brighter future for our children and our grandchildren. host: is a realistic request? guest: it is a request to should have followed with iran. he did not i exactly test the proposition. -- he did not exactly test the proposition. they were clever videos mocking romney and attacking other candidates as well, making fun of republicans for that matter. i am not a big fan of candid it's getting out of the race in deciding, though, the whole system is flawed. and then telling the other candidates what to do. i think the contrast is useful. the back-and-forth of the

debate last night was as revealing on a bunch of issues as each candidate standing up and giving a 30-minute speech on his position to the country. host: john, our republican in atlantic, your next. caller: first off, but somebody needs to get ron paul copy -- a copy of a certain book. it would be a wake-up call. it should be a retired reading -- required reading for every politician. iran has committed numerous acts of war against us, killing our troops, in afghanistan and iraq, and on and on. in my mind, i think they have committed the same things that osama bin laden did. when it comes to the economy, bill, and do you not think that that most of the american people, i've heard polls support raising taxes in this

economy? on a certain segment of our population. mostly the job creators. isn't that testament not only to the ignorance of a large part of our population but the failure of us in the media and conservatives and leaders to empower people with knowledge of history? for instance, newt gingrich touched on this in several debates. in september, and the third year of reagan's first term, we created over 1 million jobs. host: i will leave that that because we're running out of time. guest: i agree that we should not raise taxes. and republicans have not done a good job of explaining why that would damage job creation. they said the the top rate under bill clinton was 39% and he created jobs. bush did not turn out so great.

so it is not great, you do not have to be a socialist or particular left wing to think that maybe a couple of points on the marginal rate would not be a disaster. i should not be same as. my friends are having heart attacks. -- i should not be saying this. my friends are having heart attacks. whether it -- whether we have a burdensome regulatory structure and tax code of particular is a good idea, i think conservatives have done a good job in the debate over the last 30 years but not as good a job as they should have done. when you get a financial meltdown like we get in -- what we got in 2007, you have to think that people -- and that happens with the republican president, let's face it. people and i cannot automatically believe the republican ideas. one final thing about ron paul. since we're so interested in him and i have to go in a minute. i am not going to apologize at

all. a lot of people when they criticize ron paul have to preface their criticism by saying, he brings a lot to the debate. i do not believe that. i think it would be better for the republican party, and i've thought about the sun, if he left the republican party. a lot of republicans think about how to keep ron paul and the tent and does not the third party. host: including his fellow candidates. guest: he gave a speech in a convention that did not help the president's reelection run. he left the party in 1999 and a lot of people including the said goodbye and good riddance. go run as the reform party candidate. he did not get many votes and i think george bush was helped from being freed from the extreme isolationism and anti- israel views and like very ron paul is a little different from all the can and cannot too much

better. even in the short run. host: even in the election. it would hurt president obama? guest: i do not know, but i would feel more comfortable as a republican saying that of ron paul -- ron paul can do what he wants. if he wants to support whoever the republican nominee is, people can do that. but i don't think anyone should plead him not to run our stay in the party. i would be comfortable in a general election if mitt romney or newt gingrich or rick santorum were debating both barack obama and ron paul. host: let's try again a couple more phone calls. rick in tennessee, the quick. caller: 1994, they work for

nafta. it s cost millions of jobs. -- it has cost this country millions of jobs. it is not too hard for companies to take the profit in move jobs overseas. thank you. guest: i supported nafta and i did today. i do not believe that we lost jobs to canada. some companies did move jobs to mexico but the trade has been the benefit. i support nafta and i have no apologies for it. host: richard in michigan. caller: mr. kristol and america, stop lying about ron paul. there is a revolution going on in this country for this is restoring individual liberty. talk about the issues, for crying out loud. if he wants to in the federal reserve and give a sound money. he wants to and the undeclared an unconstitutional wars.

guest: did he say that he voted for one of those wars? caller: no. @ listen to me. he voted for the authority to get bin laden. that was not the authority to go into all right. and do not demagogue the issue. we are talking about personal freedom and liberty. you neocons are done. go away. america does not want you anyway. fox news' allies. your propaganda is a disgrace to the republic. give us a break. guest: i think this is a country of liberty and we do not need ron paul to bring us back our liberty. i have been a critic of the federal reserve and i am moderately pro-gold standard so i do not rule out every radical change in economic policy. i'm happy to debate foreign policy with ron paul and patrick gannon and people who

agree with them. the notion that somehow, fine, ron paul can lead a revolution. i am not interested in a revolution. i am interested in restoring limited constitutional government in a sensible way and also interested in preserving the good things that government does and preserving a strong u.s. role in the world. i'm interested in stopping iran from getting nuclear weapons. which ron paul seems to think is not important. if ron paul thinks it would be good for individual liberties with a nuclear iran and a nuclear race in the middle east, that it would be easier to preserve freedom. home for children and grandchildren, he is welcome to that view. i do not agree with that. host: thank you for talking to our viewers. >> and mark, we talk about the deadline for congress, understanding the payroll tax cut. then a look at the role of super pacs in the presidential race.

"washington journal' each morning at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. later, a joint house subcommittee hearing looks at the volcker rule. it prohibits financial institutions from entering into an advisory and credit to roll with clients and it tends to minimize conflict of interest. live coverage at 9:30 a.m. eastern. job council obama's called for an overhaul of the corporate tax system and expand the domestic oil drilling. from the white house, this is about 10 minutes.

>> are you doing tax good. have a seat, everybody. for those of you alive not seen since before the break, happy new year. i am extraordinarily grateful for all the work that you have done. i want to start up by thinking jeff for his continued outstanding leadership of the jobs council. the plan is for me to maybe open

up with a few remarks. then we have a bunch of presentations. one thing that has been striking about this jobs council is how focused and how hard working everybody has been around this table. this has not been a show counsel. this has been a work council. we have generated as good a set of proposals as we have seen coming out of the private sector to help to guide and steer our economic agenda and our approach to jobs and growth over the next couple of years. in each of the earlier meetings,

we discuss the key role we all play in improving growth and competitiveness and that the economic recovery has to be driven by the sector. we have been moved aggressively to implement your recommendations as you have heard of your a 35 executive recommendations, we have taken action on 33 of them. we have completed the implementation of 16 of them. i will highlight a couple of examples. building on some of the job councils, last week the vice president and i hosted a forum on the increasing trend of sourcing, and investing in in united states. we discussed tangible ways we could encourage domestic investment. i announced new tax proposals to provide further incitements a

dickinson's as including expand provide furthero incitements to expand in u.s. it confirmed the power of one- stop shops and a coordinated approach from the federal government. i personally emphasize that the white house team -- emphasized to the white house team is the important but recommending this council. i have been tracking recommendations. we have seen substantial progress across the board. let me highlight a couple other areas where it has had a sick of again impact. on permiting, -- a significant impact. on permiting, as we all agreed, we needed to make a big investment in infrastructure to

ensure our competitiveness. we cannot be bogged down by red tape and bureaucracy if we're going to get every bang for the buck. building on administration efforts, i issued an executive order to expedite review of job- creating projects as a track on their progress. all 14 projects are on track. we're using these projects to learn lessons that we can scale across a whole range of projects across the federal government. i want you to know that as a result of your input, we will establish a permanent project manager overseen by a omb to establish metrics and the best practices across agencies. you can check that off the list. i know he was coming year. is going to make sure he what

happened. a second example under regulatory review. we will have the opportunity to expand on what we have been doing in this area. i asked several agencies to cut burdensome regulations. i issued an executive order to independent agencies to look back at their regulations for excessive burdens. currently, we are estimating savings of $10 billion over 10- years by implementing a fraction of the reforms that have already been proposed and identified. we will provide with a further update in a moment. this is exciting. it includes the independent agencies. the sec, prompted by our request and due to some excellent work, they have already eliminated 190 r ules. that gives you some sense of the scale of the work that can be

done as a consequence of some of -- of some of your regulations. i announced that i'm going to ask congress to give the authority to organize the government to work better while eliminating duplicates. much of this was embodied in in some of the recommendations you had not concession areas. this would create an authority that would require that any reorganization proposal reduced the size of government and cut costs. this is not just a matter of moving boxes around. can you actually achieve better integration, better streamlining, better efficiency, and better consumer service and pay off for taxpayers? the first was to focus on the six agencies focused on the

trade into a new departure with a single mission, to spur job creation and expand the u.s. economy. it will consolidate the core business and trade functions of six agencies. it would be focused solely on helping businesses of all sizes to grow and compete and to hire cutting customer costs. not only have you exceeded all providing a andin thoughtful like they were sitting on a shelf somewhere collecting dust. we tried to take seriously everything you proposed and to integrate it into not only legislative proposals but also the executive proposals out there. i read their first-year report.

and is pleased to see the was consistency and shared urgency about america plan to win. education, innovation. streamlining regulations. energy, manufacturing, all these are critical issues and the impact each other. i recognize a lot of these issues are difficult. they have proven challenging for decades. the good news is we have made progress on each of these friends. i feel confident in the able to say everyone of the agencies in this government has focused on how to the improved and get smarter and better and faster, become more focused on delivering good value to the end user. and i believe we have made

genuine progress on all these fronts. we would not have made this progress without this jobs council and it will pay off in terms of solidifying this recovery and allowing us to move forward in a way that translates to jobs. which has been of principle and primary focus, making sure we are creating a fair shot for every american wants to work hard and get out there and succeed. i want to say thank you for being able to provide such outstanding leadership. i am looking forward to hearing all the great work. >> leading up to saturday's parikh, wrote to the white house coverage takes you to the advance. >> we need to eliminate these and cap them, cut them, send them back to the states, remove federal oversight and let the states have the flexibility to

deliver its programs. we have brought to the forefront, others have talked about it and they do nothing about it. right now is this liberty movement which is seen as a patriotic movement, an individual liberty movement that is saying to the country in world we have had enough of sending our kids and money around the world to be the policemen of the world. it is time to bring them home. >> as candidates get their message out, meeting voters. >> thank you. >> the endorsement from taxes. >> we feel good about that. the conservatives are coalescing around our campaign and that will be good for us. >> find more video from the campaign trail at c-span.org.

>> nancy pelosi sits down for a conversation with mike allen of politico. this is over one hour. >> good morning. welcome to the first breakfast of 2012. a pleasure to be here with later pelosi in just a minute and we are excited for playbooks. thank you for coming out in the rain and braving fire alarms and all that. we think bank of america for their continued sponsorship. there are an important forum.

and bank of america has continued to sponsor these and we're grateful for that. i would like to give a shout out to, we have in the audience some alumni of the bank of america oppose the urban alliance program. good morning and welcome. welcome to you in web stream land. here, we read the papers together. looking ahead, a sneak peek at some news for today. the final leg of the democratic national convention. president obama will deliver his acceptance speech. officials will announce this today. it is part of an effort and

democratic sources said there are other changes to the convention. that is something you will see popping up. you will see in the playbook tomorrow. also politico is celebrating its fifth birthday coming up a week from now and as part of that, for the first time, the print edition of politico which you see and hold, for the first time that is circulating every day in new york city, 4000 copies every day in manhattan and we have spotted the politico box on porpark avenue. i appreciate your being here and i would like to welcome leader's. -- a leader -- leader pelosi. >> welcome back. this is your first time back. >> we were back last week.

>> you did a little texas trip in between. >> i was in el paso on friday, houston on saturday, austin on sunday, and came here yesterday. >> not even in my native state of california. what a schedule. before we get down to business, we have a hard ball for you. he says the 49ers game, he wants to bet to a box of their deli chocolate's against the equivalent of haagen-dazs ice cream from the bronx. are you willing to take that on? >> absolutely. sounds like a no-lose situation to me. chocolate one way or another. he will definitely -- i will definitely enjoy that.

>> what is your outlook where spread? >> they said 30 points which was interesting. i am not so much in the spread, i am into the winning. d.c., too.n >> i have a lot going on. with all that we had with martin luther king day and travel and the rest, my home town is san francisco. my native city is baltimore. baltimore playing houston, my grandchildren live in houston. my other grandchildren's father is from colorado. we could not lose. there were getting ready for the mardi gras. we tried to treat them very well. there was good is one way or

another matter who won. it was great football, all weekend. how about the 49ers game. did you see the last quarter? you have not seen it? there were taking it down to minutes. it was quite remarkable. when i grew up in baltimore we had johnny unitas. that was par for the course. growing up in san francisco, joe montana. two scores in the last two minutes. a piece of cake. this victory was in the tradition of what we expected. >> pleas for not surprise. -- pleased but not surprised. >> we thank c-span for carrying us live. in october when you were on this week you said you support the message of occupied. they're coming to you and saying

they are occupying congress and they have a permit and i wonder if you think they have the right target. should they be protesting government or who should they be protesting? >> what i said at the time is their message, the status quo is unacceptable. it is a message to think is an important one for our country. i think if i had any connection to them when -- what i would encourage them to do is something we will do first thing when we take back the house. >> one is that? >> that will be in 10 months. >> how certain are you? >> we will get to that. but it is the most important message i think they have. the status quo is not acceptable and a critical part of the status quo is how campaigns are financed. it is a problem that has been exacerbated by the citizens united, it sounds too good a name.

the miserable decision by the supreme court to allow any and all funding contributions into campaigns, ridiculous. what are we -- what we are going to do, i hope they would share that. we want to disclose where is this money coming from. when we win and amend the first order of business -- reform, that is what we can do by law. disclose, reform the system and -- amend the constitution to change the ridiculous notion that any and all kinds of money can went to campaign. this has created such cynicism in the public and justifiably so. >> we knew that citizens united would be big. this had more of an effect on the dialogue than you expected.

>> 2012? 2010 is what we were interested in. at that point there was no disclosure. the change had not set in until the bill lost in the senate. once the special interests knew that they could contribute endlessly, secretly without anybody knowing where the money came from, then the floodgates opened. may of last year, not many people thought we would lose the house. by the time the bill failed in the senate it was all over because it was going to be and less money. coming up on 9.5% unemployment. we tried to control the damage. that is where the element of surprise was.

hopefully this time the bright light of scrutiny was on it. the public does not like it. they spent -- $50 million already in the republican presidential race and have had an impact. >> we have this remarkable situation where we have to comedians, jon stewart and stephen colbert who are educating a huge swath of young people about the intricacies of campaign finance. what do you think the fact they have seized upon the supertax -- seubert -- superpacs. >> it is humorous. this makes a complete difference in our political system. we have tried over time and this is what i think the legacy of the democrats has to be when we win this next election. that is to have a new politics.

new and free are the best words. free of the special interests so that we're not talking about this big money piled into these campaigns. we have tried that over time to have a check of system so citizen participation would work. >> this did not just occur with citizens united. >> we made progress with mccain fine gold -- mccain-feingold. some people resisted it and did not like the fact that parties could no longer play a role.

what the court did was something so drastic, it rolled back progress for 100 years. this is something quite different. disclose the money, that goes a long way. reform the system again and then amend the constitution. we will see what the public appetite is. >> do you think the attention could help change this? you have read about it, have you seen it? >> i know quite well. i think that is important. >> what will it do? how is it important? >> most people, we sit in this room, will understand what is going on with this, that, and the other thing. generally and the reason these

pacs have succeeded is most people do not know they are there and how they operate. they see the results of it. to show the mechanics of what this is. to say anything -- there is no regard for fact orchards 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 you were going to be at the mercy. when i get the biggest response to is i was in these three cities this weekend and silicon valley. when you talk about disclose and reform, people are very ready for it. >> how you feel about occupy d.c. say they're going to occupy

congress? you're not worried about chaos? >> i hope it will be done in a way that protects the rights and the people who were involved and i do think that it is important to know what they had said and that is that the status quo is not acceptable. if i were they, i would have waited this directly to the role of money in politics. >> they seem to be looking for a message. you think that is the way the movement could have stability or impact? >> i understand in and i do not -- as opposed to the tea party which was practically an owned subsidiary of the republican party. we do not have much of a connection with occupy. they may have some sentiments that overlap. one of the big concerns that people have come of that tax

code and its on fairness and economic policy that calcifies the on fairness in our system's disparity, the disparity of ownership, of equity. people having a real chance. many people i understand consider the tax code in place where big money, special interest money ways in repeatedly to the disadvantage of main street to the advantage of wall street. >> you worthy highest -- you were the highest ranking woman in history. i believe you will be celebrating her 25th anniversary in congress. you will get chocolate for it, i guess. >> i certainly hope so. >> the president will be running against congress. what do you think? >> i am all for it.

my understanding is the president told me exactly that. this is a congress that has done such a disservice to our country. you have to give them credit. they do what they believe. these republicans. they do not believe in government that has any role in clean air, clean water, food safety, public safety, public health, public education, medicare, medicaid. >> george jenna bush did the no child left behind at. >> he did that but he did not fund it. he did not funded. i will never forget the first is secretary came to our labor hhs committee and the commitment was mandate and money. the first day we said, where is the request in the budget and he

said we do not need it. that was a setback. president bush had the idea that no child left behind would be a good idea. part of the reason it did not succeed is because there was no resources to match the federal mandate. my colleagues, you know what they told me? one of the reasons we did not have to worry about defaulting on the government is there are other ways that we could reduce the deficit. one was to shut down the department of education. this is a member of congress telling me this. >> who was this? >> i cannot tell you. he was proud of it. i will call you in. he said we should do to save money, the following. shutdown of the department of education. turn the building into 435 condominiums so we can all live there together and cut congressional pay and we go along away -- that would go a

long way toward reducing the deficit. >> what about a cafeteria? >> what ever. i heard on the debate last night a very vigorous shutting down of the department of education. i saw some of it. >> this was the fox news debate from south carolina. what did you make of your opposition? >> here is what i saw. i have not had a chance to watch many of the debates. i have not taken the opportunity.

i am a big espn fan, that is where i go. here i s mis my conclusion. we have a contest with a winner. -- without a winner. the so called right wing described as an evangelical and others are not supporting mitt romney, at least not yet. because they do not think he is going to win. if they thought he was going to win, you could make the case he could beat obama. they do not think he will win in november. they're like, why should we compromise who we are? let's be for who we want to be and get ready for four years from now when it is a clean

slate. now incumbent. we can start to get ready. >> you think the republican right is intentionally digging in assuming all loss and sticking out their ground for 2016? >> i know something about the dynamic of a presidential election. and shall we say the satisfaction, all corners of the parties. in this case if they -- the argument. we should be for romney because he is going to win, i do not think they think he's going to win. this is -- this present when he gets out there and makes his case and takes his message to the people, this crowd they have their, it is not exactly what you would call the first string of the republican party. i think they can do better than

that. >> who? >> i would never say. it is hard to say. nonetheless, you got the third tier and second-tier is gender. here is the point. just to bottom-line it. if the far right thought romney could wind they might be more enthusiastic about him. they do not share -- the question what he stands for. they do not think he is going to win. what is the cell -- sell? that makes it harder, it does not instill confidence as to where he might be on these issues. >> you probably know governor romney, would you make of him? >> i really do not know him. i do not know who knows. does he know him? i heard him say things that were really uninformed or just plain

wrong. for example, he said he would absolutely never negotiate with the taliban. the question was, one of your senior foreign policy advisor says this is the opponent, this is who you negotiate with. he said, absolutely, positively not. not making any distinction among taliban who are ready to reconcile and reintegrate, as ron paul did say, al qaeda rec or other dangerous areas. >> this will be a big tissue in the -- issue in the fall. would mitt romney make it easier for democrats to take the house? >> let me just say on the

house, we do it one district at a time. it is not -- what want -- we want president obama at the top of the ticket. the president -- can i talk politics? can i do that in this building? we have to be careful. >> feel free. >> here's the thing. in states where we expect to do very well, california, illinois, new york, the president will not really be spending a great deal of resources to get out the vote. he is going to win the states. we have to be on our own in the individual districts. if you want to win the state's, why go to the inner city? our race is be on the

interstate. we understand that dynamic. if you want to win the state you do one thing, if you want to win the legislature, you do another. we will be big in those states knowing of the president will have of an inspirational message that works in the states. we have to -- we have great candidates, just get out the vote. texas, he won't be spending money for the opposite reason. we're waiting for the supreme court decision. we will have opportunity to pick up seats. florida is the state where we have a three-way commonality of interest. we have the presidential, the senate, and we can pick up seats in florida. in this five states we come close to picking up most of what we need. not all, we need more than that

but it comes close to what we need. the drive for 25, that takes us to the 218, i want 35, so we need more to get that done. for us, this cast of characters, it is not about them. it is about president obama, how well he will do. air canada is, how they compare and contrast to the candidates that are running against. be tempted into telling you who would be the biggest winner for us on the republican side. we feel it is not about them. it is about us and our president. >> would it -- what have you thought of mitt romney digging in on the immigration issue? >> he said a number of things which cannot seem consistent

with the aura they want to put out about someone who will go in there and be fair minded and bipartisan. to say that you would bidault the dream act really tells you a lot about a person. >> what does that tell you? >> it tells you you do not have an understanding of the education of these and people is critical to not only theirself fulfillment, but to the competitiveness of america. anyone who has ever been to the dream act event and i have been to many around the country knows 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 is

reigniting the american dream, building ladders of opportunity for all who want to play by the rules, take responsibility and put down ladders for them to come up. that would be the difference between us. we have important work to do and the dream act, we pass it in the house, i was very proud. it fell short in the senate's. i almost wish that is an over- promise. he is not -- it is indicative of a hard line that does not seem consistent with who he was as governor. >> a hard line. >> that is a hard line. >> how do you think that will affect republicans' efforts to improve their performance among hispanics? >> i do not think it will be helpful at all. it will be harmful. >> why? >> the hispanic community and

again i was visiting el paso and it has been three pieces -- places where i interacted come in california every day with the hispanic community. education is the key issue to the hispanic community. it is the key in our society to making a difference and how -- in how people perform, how they succeed. it is and 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, that determination, that optimism, they make america more american. those are america's driving principles, optimism, hope, determination to make the feature better. it is what we were founded on. a predicate that each

generation would take responsibility for the next. when they come that reinvigorate those ideas. education is central to it and hispanic community knows that. 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 of the spanish language, of doing well in school and the rest, they are 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 the most fabulously talented young people. i think that one thing we did on immigration, comprehensive reform was to hold it together for a long time. we're not going forward unless

we have the full package. legalization, the dramatic and secure our borders. >> we held them together but it did not pass. >> we made a departure and said let's go with the dream act. that was the departure. >> comprehensive did not pass. today is back to school for the house. job one is the payroll tax cut. extension -- would do before extending it for the full year if it were paid for by spending cuts rather than taxing the wealthy? >> i think i am always open to seeing what offsets someone might want to put forward but it seems hard to explain why we have tax cuts for the wealthiest people that are not paid for. 350,000 of the wealthiest families have tax cuts and they

make over $1 million a year. we cannot touch one red cent of the money. if we're going to have a tax cut for 160 million americans, we have to pay for a. we will have unemployment insurance which is part of the package. people have paid into. we have to pay for that, we have not. we should not have to do that. i would say of the three things, the payroll tax cuts, the unemployment insurance and the ability for seniors to see the doctor, their doctor under medicare, sgr could be paid for by the overseas account. >> that is the first time you said that. >> oco? i have been for oco paying for

things. >> what has changed about your thinking for pay for as -- pay fors? >> we talked about that in the grand bargain in the super committee. if you have a big deal, that is going to save -- cut the deficit by $4 trillion, and some of these cuts can be justified. if you have growth, you have to have growth. if you have growth and an entrepreneurial package, how do we get growth to create jobs? where revenue can we bring in further growth but also to offset the deficit and the cuts, the spending cuts that would balance that all-out.

we're not doing a big package anymore. we still want to do these cuts over here. when you get really nothing for it. >> are you -- or proposing another grand bargain, another larger package? >> i never give up on that. that is not going to happen in two weeks or whatever it is when we come back. we are in four days in january. >> you are expressing more openness to spending cuts and you have in the past. >> to offset trade we have to say ok, if you think and i do not think you should have to pay for it but if you do not pay for tax cuts, the wealthiest people in america, where we paying for it for the people. there is a reason. if you offset it, you are deterring some of the stimulative impact of the tax cuts. the tax cuts are important.

they are received by people who need the money, will spend it immediately, inject demand into the economy, and create jobs. there is a macro economic purpose to this tax cuts for 160 million people. for unemployment benefits for millions who lost their jobs and want to go back to worked. 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 but to have any survival. on the payroll tax cuts, a similar impact. to the extent that you start of setting, -- offsetting, you

weaken the economic impact. if there is a way to look at some offsets which could be revenue, subsidies for big oil, subsidies for airplanes, it could be some of this kind of things that might be used for that. it should not come out of our investment in education and the rest which -- nothing brings more money to the economy, to the treasury, nothing brings more money to the treasury then the education of the american people. early childhood, k-12, higher education, postgrad, lifetime learning. nothing brings more money to the treasury then education. >> housing is a huge issue in california and in the presidential campaign. given all the efforts the

administration has made to stabilize the housing market, do you think it is time to accelerate foreclosures and let the housing market reset? >> our members from california have written to the president asking him to appoint -- i do not want to say replace demarco, he has been there for a while and they are not pleased with the pace of things there. what i am saying is some more positive signs about how that is going. i have always been one who said reduce the principal. they're all kinds of ways we could have reduced principal and interest payments and to the extent that we did that, we would take some of the upside when these houses eventually --

when the market came back. the federal government would have part of the upside and the owner would have part of the upside. somebody else who was paying his or her mortgage on time and all the rest did not say, i was penalized because i did what i did. >> some of these pending foreclosures are cancers that need to be cut out, right? >> it is a question of how they originated. some of these were subprime loans. some were people lost their jobs and had nothing to do with a subprime loan. there was an initiative which exists to help people who have lost their jobs and have not been able to make payments for like three months for something like that. for them to stay in their homes. this is going to be a tough- minded, coldblooded analysis of

all this at some point. i have had people come to me and say, my banker have said to me even though i have said, i have recouped and i am back to work and i have the money, i put it in the bank for three months ahead of time so you know i am going to pay and the banks and said, -- the banks have said you are more valuable to me in for closer than you are in pain. >> who needs to do this cold blooded analysis? >> we have a responsibility -- >> the government or the demonstration? >> everyone with a hand in it. that would be enough reason. it is not just about people staying in their homes and the dignity of that. it is also about what this means to our economy and our economy is never going to be fully well until this happens. there are some who have said let's hear what it hit rock

bottom and as it comes back, we can recover. >> what should the administration or congress do to jump-start the housing market? >> we are -- something could have been done sooner similar to what i said before which is how we keep people in their homes? had we keep them paying what they can pay and take some of the downside of ownership as they stay in their homes? >> we lost a few people to a fire alarm. congratulations on your new day. we have a question for the new leader. >> i wanted to ask you about and you mentioned earlier about redistricting and its impact on 2012. one of the things that struck me, not all the maps have been settled. when we look at it on a national level, it seems this year this round of redistricting has

continued a culture of incumbent protection. are drawnthe district's in a way that makes it easier for reelection. i wonder in your drive for 35, if you worry that the nature of redistricting has created districts that just by the mouth are not competitive enough to put in play the no. you would have to put in place to take back the house. >> you never know what the consequences are going to be of redistricting. in california, the republican party made a very expensive and concerted effort to put a commission on the ballot. commission to draw lines. i am all for commissions drawing lines. they have to meet certain standards and i would hope we could have a national bill that has the standards and states could take them on with their

own characteristics of their own state. what happened in california and iwhat happened in california and i never have ever feared -- [no audio] >> if you do it objectively, same thing.

republicans thought there was pre-clearance. that court said that was the legislator. to get back to the court. get involved in an interim redistricting. this is a redistricting for this next election. it is not a redistricting for 10 years. this is something, the court in washington said the court in texas should draw the lines and go for. we are concerned they want to use that case to repeal title ii

entitlement five of the voting rights act. justice scalia is in charge of the taxes region. they divide the country into nine regions. not a fan of the voting rights act. we are concerned of what it might do. that would have been more concerned about what it might do about title ii and title ix 5. any of these places -- again, if you could have the deficit. there is national standards for commissions that state would use to take it out of the legislative process. legislative process works for you. in terms of the public confidence in the system, let's

take it all to state determined commissions that meet national standards in terms of the voting rights act. we are going to do really well. they would win 10 or 20 seats in redistricting. the republicans. with stiff competition. that was one of the most foolish statements. >> to quickly follow. in california and texas, assuming -- when you look at ohio, pennsylvania, tennessee, illinois, it is a culture of saving the seats that have now, not necessarily growing the majority. it is a good example of a place where they protected the incumbents that are there. democrats should be able to play

more competitively in. >> illinois will be positive for the democrats. the republicans did a number -- they serve blocked and members would be running against each other in some cases. maybe they are of the same party. we feel pretty good about california, new york, which has not done their redistricting yet. but just for what the makings of are there. illinois, new york, california, texas, florida, arizona -- i do not want to show my whole hand here today. we believe the makings of the 25 are there

>> workers hard. we have a plan. we have the candidates and that is a big selling point. in order to win 25 seats you have to play in 50 seats. we have 75 that were reduced. we will see how they play. that comes down to 50. >> are you at 75 now? >> we're at 75 now. >> when does it nearer to 15? >> maybe they'll succeed and meet the standard. here's the thing. we have about 70.

35 women. over 30 are women. we have a large number of hispanic candidates. it is a very mixed group. with the woman that we have, a police chief, a young woman in the police department, rising to the level of police chief. i know how to protect people. you have emmy duckworth. >> we are interested in her. >> she will be here. >> how are you so confident? >> she has a good district and is a primary there. she and another wonderful person are running. i believe tammy, she has run before and she has a national constituency. her story is a compelling one. we believe that she will be

here. that is not to say the other candidate will win that seat. whoever the nominee is, we will win. >> something about speaker banner that we do not know. >> i have not the faintest idea. tell me what we do not know. >> you can relate. a lot of party-line votes. you have seen that. what advice do you have for him? >> i would hope that he does not need my advice. i would hope they would act on behalf of the american people. that did not happen last year. >> how would you play your cards differently? >> you have to give them some sympathy in this respect. when i became speaker, i knew the members for a long time. i have helped each one of them win.

relationships over time. when we went to do our legislation, it was like a finely woven fabric. everybody's thread was a strong, strong thread of what they brought to that. we built consensus and we will of 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 -- [no audio] we all know each other very

well. we had the opportunity. and when president obama, we know what he was capable of. all these people came in. it is a different dynamic. contrary to what you think or know. sensus.ys built con >> we have very little time. >> what are your observations about his ability?

the speaker has awesome power. setting the legislative agenda. in the process in the federal government. far be it from me to give any republicans any advice about how they had their dynamic. i would hope that what we all come here to do, i do not think anybody comes here to be a party regular. you come here to work together. when i came 25 years ago it was not this way. it was not until newt gingrich that i got to be so poisonous and after that -- it's got to be so poisonous and after that. i would be the last person to

give any advice to them accept -- except the strength of what we were able to accomplish which was very significant and of which i am very proud. the less it related to a philosophical, ideological agenda, the more successful we were in moving fourth legislation. >> did that answer your question? went as far as he could in keeping them corralled. anything for john boehner in particular rather than a philosophical, how can he keep his people in line? >> you are or have to ask him. one thing he will have to do is he has to want to keep them in line. >> what do you mean by that? >> we have been -- so many

times, we were almost there -- let's start with the first cr. they did not have the votes. we had-did not have the input. that is when you go to the default. that was terrible. many of them said they thought it was ok if we defaulted. they would take us to a place that 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. they wanted -- did they want to do that or not? did he want to prolong it or said discussion or did he want to find an agreement? i do not know. >> rapid round, a couple of

questions. you are a historic figure as the first woman speaker and the legislation to pass. what do you want now most? >> what i want to see is the health care reform bill derecognize for what it is. i think we are ironclad in terms of the law but you never know what happens in court. one of the reasons i am here was the passage of that bill and now it is -- it's safe keeping and transition into -- show the public knows what the public is in terms of the difference it makes in their lives. millions of kids already are on policies parents' until they're 26. young children for a while could not be discriminated against because of a pre- existing medical condition. it is about innovation, prevention, it is about a

healthy america, not just health care for america. my focus is still on that. >> also about -- are you surprised the gop is against this and i'm willing to guarantee some reserve kept on licensed for this purpose? >> nothing surprises me about the gop. i do think it is important that we recognize the importance of the unlicensed spectrum as we try to use the spectrum as the cash cow to pay for other things. >> if the aircraft could get a promise of a permanent -- for medicare, would you give more ground on medicare savings or are you resigned to another patch? >> if we could get a permanent fix which we have been for all along, we could get a permanent fix with