i am not against all regulation. when i taught environmental studies, the river had caught fire in downtown cleveland. i tell my friends, it is not a good sign when you have enough pollution that a river is catching fire. we had tennessee with the sulfuric acid had turned off all of the trees for several miles -- had turned off all of the trees for several miles. --burned off all of the trees for several miles. i want to have a new agency. the are certain limits to what we are willing to keep. one of the reasons i am different, one of the reasons i

decided to run, knowing how hard it would be, we have had republican presidents. we have h republican presidents with a republican congress. they did not change the epa. they slow down the rate of decay. they generated the same regulations year after year. after having studied it for a long time, i think there is a virtue to having somebody who knows what they are doing. we have tried two years of an amateur. i think you need to replace the agency if you are going to make it work. the people are committed to a world the which is incompatible with our local freedoms and free enterprise. a gingrich hesitancy it would be very controversial. -- gingrich presidency would be very controversial. we would fight for fundamental

change in a way that none of the other candidates have begun to think about. [applause] >> we have one more question we would li to ask. >> i am representing a german company in the energy field. we have developed some unique systems in the solar field, wind turbines, storage batteries. we can to colada two years ago. we invested millions about dollars. we do have a situation where events like solyndra have put a dent on positive developments. would you have a mandated

program for energy. that is what it took in germany to spawn over three dozen companies that did not exist -- over 300companies that did not exist. >> no, i would not. [applause] let me tell you why. a mandate has no cost attached to it. you watch california where they do these things all the time. they are destroying business in california. they are destroying the cost of living. i will create a permanent tax credit so you have the ability of your decisions. it is irrational for the congress to pass a tax credit. you have no long-term stability. i am happy -- i recognize, i am shipping part of the energy environment to favor the growth of new technology.

we subsidized air mail in the 1930's. it is a conscious effort to create a new industry. we did not pick one company or another. i would say, i would be happy to talk to you about had to have a long term, stable tax credit you can count on. i do not want to go to in no cost attached mandate system in which you end up with systems which are incompatible and can be legally opposed bec they fit a formula. that is an invitation to go to waste on part of the new technologies and lower the standard of living. [applause] and i done? -- am i done? one brief political commercial. if you decide you want large

change in washington and the think having someone who helped ben -- balance the budget for four years and worked with clinton on a program that created a 11 million jobs, if that makes sense for you, i would ask you, when you go home today, on bass boat, e-mailed, telephone, -- on facebook, e- mail, a telephone, to encourage people to vote for me tomorrow. i am very thrilled to be here today. i hope you have a good afternoon. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> gop presidential candidate rick santorum also spoke in ohio. comments from energy policy. over 40 minutes. >> thank you. a great opportunity to be back here in colorado. this is my first time at the colorado school of mines. we look forward to this discussion today, talk about an initiative that is important to me. i have brought a couple of members of my family. i have been married to my wife for 21 years. we have seven children. i would two oldest have taken of semesters from college, a year from college to help osama out on the campaign. that is my daughter elizabeth -- to help us out on the campaign. that is my daughter elizabeth and my son john.

[applause] i am anxious to talk about this. i come from pennsylvania. pennsylvania is a great energy state. it is a great mining state. i have a history in the mining industry. not myself personally. unlike other folks who have run for president, who have owned it will wells, my grandfather was a coal miner. a different end of the spectrum. my grandfather came to western pennsylvania in 1927. he worked in a coal mine in a little comtown. it was a company town. he got paid with coupons. you got paid with coupons. you live in housing with company housing. you had to shop at the company

store. i have been to the house. the water was a quarter of a mile away. that was the environment, when my dad came and came to america , it was an experience that my grandfather ended up working in those mines and a 1958, when he was 72 years old. my grandfather, he would be proud of me, he would not because of the party a represented. he was a union democrat. -- he would not be proud of the party i represented. he was a union democrat. when i was growing up as a kid, there were three pictures on the wall. there was a picture of jesus, the pope, and john f. kennedy.

i do have some background in the coal industry. my grandfather lived for the rest of his life at the mouth of the mind. -- mine. there was an orange creek. i used to play around in the coal fields. when i left, went to school at penn state. also, i worked for a senator who represented the coal industry. i worked closely with that industry for many years. then, when i became interested in running for office, i continued to do a lot and worked in the energy industry. we had a little oil and gas industry. the gas industry was ok.

the mining was not what it was. all of the mining has moved appeared to the west. we were dealing with issues. in the recent years, we have had a change in pennsylvania. we have a change based on the fact that hydro-fracking, deep drilling. we were fighting about where to locate facilities along the east coast. liquiedif -- liquefied natural gas, we were deficient. thanks in part to a lot of funds, fracking and shale, we now have two $60 since -- $2.60 gas. we were trying to find people to get into the industry. if you look at the unemployment

rate in pennsylvania, it is lower, why? because of energy. we are excited about that. we are not excited with how the administration is dealing with hydrocracking -- hydro- fracking. what they have done to the coal industry, delays and the niles for permits. the war on coal-fired power plant. -- plants. we have already seen six shut down. as many as 60 may shut them as a result of these new regulations. the clean air act regulations that are being put on a cold- fired power plant. -- on coal-fired power plants. we have well over 100 years of oil and a couple hundred years

-- we do not even know how much gas we have. the president cannot look again that as an asset. he looks at this as a problem. -- the president does not look at that as an asset. he looked at death as a problem. -- he looks at that as a problem. i see it as one of the greatest assets we have. to create affordable energy to keep the standard of living in this country as high as possible. and sometimes carry a chart with me that shows the cost of energy in the country in the standard of living in that country. you can see, the cheaper the energy in the country, the higher the standard of living. it is a correlation to the

abundance and affordability of energy and the quality of life. we have to remind people that we went into a recession in 2008. people forget what. they thought it was a house and bubble. that was because we had a spike in energy prices. people had to pay so much to air conditioning and heat their homes. this is the reality of how important energy is. we put a plan together that is very big on growing energy. particularly, the energy assets that we have a competitive advantage in. that does not mean we need government-run programs. i believe we need to have an energy policy where we eliminate all subsidies.

a love everybody to go out and consume and have a regulatory environment that focuses on reasonable environment of compliance, -- environmental compliance, driven by actual science. and we have safety policies that are compliance-oriented, not intended to punish and make it too expensive to operate. we have an opportunity in this country to have a read- energizing of america and create an enormous amount of opportunity, whether it is building the keystone pipeline, which would be day one. whether it is the creation of a

new epa that will go about the process of appealing regulation on clean air. a whole host of regulations, repealing them or repealing and replacing them with regulations that are cost effective. these are the rational approaches we need to take to make sure we have affordable energy and we bring down the price of oil in this country, not just for our economy, but for our national security. the name of my economic plan is the maid in the usa planned. the reason it is called that is because i take an emphasis on creating manufacturing jobs in america. we have a country that is uncompetitive with most of our trading partners. our biggest trading partners. the reason it is an competitive is not because of the cost of

labor. if you look at the top nine trading partners, we are 20% more expensive to do business with. if we do not trade that cut -- change that, we are going to continue to lose manufacturing jobs in this country. we are going to have these products which have been engineered in america, manufactured somewhere else. people say, how are we going to get the economy going? certain parts of the economy are going well. not as well as they could. the rest of the economy is lagging behind. unemployment among blue-collar people is three times what it is then college graduates. the innovation that is occurring at the top is not being made in america. people are not reaping the benefits of the transformation of innovation. we need to change that.

the wall street journal described my plan as supply-side economics for the working man. i do apply supply-side economic principles. create a plan field that can compete with china, that can compete with mexico, not on labor costs, but on other costs. if labor costs are the only death for -- differentiation, we will lose those jobs we will keep all the good paying jobs here in america. there is no reason to move out of the country unless you what products delivered to the location. this is the best country in the world to export from. we could be the export market for the world again if we created an environment. one of the key parts is not just a tax policy, we allow things to

be brought back to america instead of paying a tax. there is no tax if they invest in equipment here in america. what is one of the key elements to keeping energy costs affordable? manufacturing is one of the highest users of energy. we need to have a competitive marketplace for power in this country. to allow the power to be moved and manufacturers to be able to get power and bulk quantities. we need to change the market. a lot of that is done by the state. as the president, i would like to see more of a marketplace. we have that in pennsylvania. the more we can see that happen to let the rest of the country, not only can we see rates go down -- happen throughout the rest of the country, not only can we see rates go down, we can

build things necessary to build on our infrastructure. i thank you all very much. i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> we do have is moderator's. we would like to pose some questions to you first. i am the president of the color of the farm bureau -- colorado farm bureau, farmers are frustrated with the environment the protection agency. we do want clean water and clean air. we are very concerned about having a balance between debt and a reasonable and agee policy. as well as balancing the regulatory burdens. had you see that being accomplished between those impacts and costs that come

about? there have been conversations about reducing the budget, possibly even eliminating it. you said you would like to reform the epa. hud the balance that as well as, -- how do you balance that, as well as, the epa is provided to protect air and water. >> thank you very much. to answer your first question, the real key in balance. i know people get very upset. we belive everything in our lives. there is no absolute. you go into the grocery store, you are always balancing your checkbook with what your eyes want. even not go and do anything irrespective of the cost. there is not unlimited

resources. the most important thing we need to do, which is what this administration has not done, which is to use them on the science, not politicized science -- which is to use sound science, not politicized silent. we saw it with global warming. an absolute travesty of a scientific researcher that was mutt -- of scientific research that was motivated by politics. motivated by those who saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis the government to be able to step in and it greatly control your life. [applause] i never bought a hoax. -- the hoax.

i understood there are hundreds of factors that impact the climate. it is the determining ingredient in the sauce that affects the entire global warming and cooling. it is absurd. and yet, we had politicians running to the ramparts. unfortunately, politicians who were running for president. they bought into global warming. both congressman gingrich and governor romney supported the idea of man-made global warming and cap and trade. i never did. unless the science is better than what we have seen today, i will not.

if you look at these things. i come from southwestern pennsylvania. i grew up in a small town. i remember the smells of the mills. i know the quality of life that can be affected by dirty air. i encourage you to go back 100 years and look of pictures of pittsburgh. you cannot see it. i am not exaggerated. you cannot see it. it is black. but the sky is dark all the time. that is how that the smoke was. we know the dirty air. we know the problems. we also know that science can measure things in the parts per gazillion. the way the laws are written allows for the agency's botched they were written at a time when they did not have the school --

they were written at a time when they did not have these tools. it is the agency's discretion to use science to for the drive up costs based on laws -- to further drive up costs based on these laws. we need to reread those laws. the issue is not the epa. george bush but also epa was not like barack obama's epa. the question is, what happens afterwards? the to and fro back and forth as a result of having different people that you regret legislations, to interpret regulations. -- people to rewrite regulations, to interpret regulations. we need to rewrite laws. abolishing the epa does not get rid of the laws that the epa has

to enforce. someone else is going to enforce them. what makes you think that any other agency is going to do better? we need to agree with the idea that we need to reform in this area. that means we have to go and look at the laws. that is what i am going to be focused on. i am going to be focused on cleaning up the epa and trying to change the idea of the tenor there. fundamentally, we have to change the underlying laws if we want to see this. that includes imposing things like requiring real science in the coalition of cost-benefit with the government. >> thank you. [applause] >> senator. on behalf of colorado, i welcome you and thank you for your time.

you mentioned the abundance of the domestic hydrocarbon resource and in your home state of pennsylvania we have seen the potential of increased natural gas resources, what they can do for economic development. you also discussed your support a free market. with that as a background, what they see as the proper role of government in getting the development of our energy in guiding the development of our energy resources. what should the government do and what should it stay away from? >> i see this as consistent with the overall philosophy of dealing with a free marketplace. the government is there to create a plainfield -- playing field for businesses to thrive

in a way that is a and creates opportunity for different categories of energy. i believe the government has gotten in the way in a lot of resource development. clearly, with offshore in deep water drilling. -- and a deepwater drilling. i have been an advocate of opening up those. fought to open up the alaska wildlife refuge. her of if we're going to keep a current will flow coming in the years ahead, we have to have more will follow in the pipeline. -- will flow in the pipeline. the oil reserves are depleting. we are talking about a keystone pipeline, we may lose the alaska pipeline. there will be insufficient flows to keep the pipeline going. just to keep existing, we need

resources in place, we need to look for other opportunities. i am not an oil man from texas going out to sell and more to the public. i will tell the truth on everything. tell the truth about what is. how it can be safely explored and grilled. how that can be critical -- how that is critical to us. the same thing -- the same thing with federal land. we do not have a lot of federal land in florida. i can tell you the problems i had with the federal government with timbering on the national forest. we have the most proper wrote -- profitable national forest in the country because we have black cherry, which is pretty valuable wood. we have the endangered species act, which has prevented us from timbering all sorts of anchorage there.

it has been corrected school districts and the like because of the government's inability to allow us to care for our resources. a forest, in my opinion is like a garden. and you have got to care for it. if you leave it to nature, the nature will do what nature does, which is boom and bust. we were put on this earth as creatures of god to store the earth and wisely, but not for our benefit, but for the earth's benefits. [applause] i consider that an article of faith. you may consider that an article of reason. if we cannot be good stewards of

the environment, then we should not let the vagaries of nature destroy what we have helped create. i think it is important that we have a policy on federal lands. first, i would like to have a lot less federal land. i think that would be a great opportunity to reduce the budget deficit, for us to get rid of and turn over to the private sector a lot of federal lands i do not need to be in our inventory. [applause] and for the press, i'm not talking about yellowstone or the grand canyon. go out and look at a lot of federal lands that could be suitable for pastor, could be suitable for oil and gas or other types of uses. they do not need to be in the federal inventory. and they are not necessarily profitable. and in the case that they are, they are not particularly well- managed. blm is understaffed and does not have the ability to provide adequately for the management of these plans.

there are all sorts of opportunities for us. and again, i come at it from a bit different perspective. i come at it from the perspective of growing up in a little town in western of solving a. the pretty much do not make any money at it. i come at it from a common-sense way to make sure we are getting the best utilization of our land, and at the same time, keeping our precious land say from development. [applause] >> president obama has proposed raising sanctions on oil and gas production on several occasions, citing the need to raise revenues to offset renewable tax credits or help reduce the deficit. critics of the president's plan, including the consumer energy alliance, argue that raising taxes would result in diminished -- reduced domestic production and higher prices at the pump. in one study, it has texas said it would increase government

revenues. -- reduce government revenues. -- in one study has said that it would reduce government revenues. >> basically, all subsidies to energy should be eliminated. there are not a lot of them, to be honest. but for me, this is a market and we should not put any taxes, any federal taxes on the development of energy. energy is an important -- as you heard me talk about before, it is very important for the health of the economy. we should be encouraging the free market to develop energy, whether nuclear energy, or whether it is wind or solar, coal or gas, oil, whatever it is -- ethanol. they should be developed based on where the market can be driven. the federal government should be in a position to make a plain field -- a playing field level.

i would not encourage any special fees or taxes put on energy production in this country. i think it would be counterproductive. [applause] >> thank you, senator. we do have microphones for the audience questions. right here in the blue shirt. let's start right there. >> hi, mr. santorum. my name is paul and i'm also from southwestern pennsylvania. i'm very fortunate to be a student here at the colorado school of mines. when i think about the future, i wonder what we can do to increase the number of elementary school students who are interested in math and science. >> that is a great question. here is the rare look at it.

-- the way i look at it. one of the principal problems of education is that it is run by the federal government and the state government. [applause] i know we like to use the term "public schools" but they are not really public schools. they are government schools. [applause] and as a result, we have an education system that is not oriented on you. it is not oriented on the people who are response -- who are the customers of the education system the customer of the education system, in my humble opinion, is the parent. why? because they are paying for the education of their children. they are the ones to pay the taxes. and whose responsibility is it to pay -- to take care of the children? the parents. they are the customer. they're the ones paying

the government to do their job. but that is not how the education system in this country functions. except in very rare occasions. some public schools, and charter schools, maybe they actually do try to create an environment. i believe you can get someone with their god-given talents that is probably oriented toward doing something like this. the way to do it is to make sure those god-given talents are identified encouraged from the earliest possible time. you not need government programs or grants. it will need is to make sure that every child -- i mean, i can think of some myself, people that i knew as kids who i thought, wow, this kid is going to be a great engineer, this guy's going to be a great scientist, and he went off the track and never ended up as anything. why? for a variety of reasons. everything from personal

problems to drug use to a bunch of other things. why do we have an environment where parents and children and administrators in schools, and particular, can get together and provide every child in america with a customized experience? it is not impossible. we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars. the one out of every three children in america will not graduate in high school. 1.2 million kids and you're dropping out of school. if you drop out of school, yet a 75% chance of being in poverty in america. we say, we just accept that. we accept that those kids are dropping out of school. i guarantee you, there's a sufficient number -- i don't know what percentage, but a significant number of those kids have the talent to be here, have

the potential to be here. it is just that potential has not been realized. why? maybe a bad family situation, maybe a personal problem, maybe school -- who knows? but we have not, as a society, made a commitment to you. we have made a commitment to the system. what good is that? if the system is not there for you, which is not. and we all know it, and yet we tolerate it and we continue to pump money into it as if doing that will change it. parents of the united states of america, you need to stand up and say, enough. you need to demand that which is your right. [applause] and the first thing i will do is fall on my sword and say i made a mistake, which i did in voting for no child left behind. we will repeal that and everything else with respect to

the government contributing and control of the secondary and primary education system in this country. the only exception to that would be to help schools and school districts that have a disproportionate number of special needs children, which are obviously going to be more expensive to care for. other than that, we will leave this not to the states. my objective will be not only to change things at the federal level, but to help you as parents organize an effort across this country to tell the states to stay out of the education system in this country, but let parents and local communities design programs that can maximize each child's ability, each child ability to find their way. this hall will be filled because we will save more children, and as a result, more children will end up here. [applause] >> thank you, senator.

to keep pace with where we are headed, one more question. i see a couple of hands right in front. >> senator, thank you. we heard from you and speaker gingrich on what you would do if you -- if elected. >> did you ask me what kind -- are you going to ask me what i will do if i lose? [laughter] >> no, if, god forbid, obama is reelected, what would a lame duck president do that most concerns you? >> if president obama were elected, what would concern me? first off, he would implement obamacare, which in my opinion, will transform america into a second-rate country. why do i say that? because every single american will be dependent upon the

federal government or for their basic health and wellness. -- a federal government for their basic of an alumnus. in every other country where that has happened, you create a dependent society and you give government control over people's lives, it will make us a fundamentally different country than we are today. look at what has happened in the past week with the catholic church. when the government tells you that you have a right that they can give you, that they created a right for you, they can tell you how to exercise that right. because they now control you. because you are now dependent upon them. the only place you can get this health insurance now, unless you are opting out of the system and you pay the fine and you self- insure, in other words, you insure yourself. they will tell you what that system is going to be and they

will order your access to care. and you will be dependent upon them for them to read about to get what you need. and you will like it. the catholic church was just told that they have to provide things in the health care and pay for them that are strictly against the teachings of the church. what did the obama administration say? to bad. -- too bad. it is a right and you will do what we say. not only that, when the bishop objected and wrote a letter, he was not allowed to write a letter. there was a military archbishop. he wrote a letter to be read by chaplains in the military. complaining about obamacare. and what it was imposing on the pack -- the catholic church. and the obama administration stop them from reading that letter in the church, and last

week forced them to change the language in order for it to be read. careful what you wish for when you give the government power and authority over you. what am i worried about? i'm worried about more of that. i am worried about cap and trade coming back. the economy starts doing well, it is coming, rest assured. the only reason it did not pass is because we are in an economic downturn and they knew it would destroy the economy even more if we even talked about it. it will be back, as well as all of the folks who lost two years ago because america will change. america will not be the land that the -- i believe in free people and free enterprise and doing things -- america will not be the land that believes in free people and free enterprise and doing things for themselves. will be like our european friends and allies are. we will be happy with cradle to

grave care, and that is what america will end up like. i say this is the most important election in the history of our country. [applause] i would say that without question, cap and trade will come back. but we will see amnesty -- assuming barack obama wins, and went back the majorities in the house and senate, we will see some sort illegal immigration bill that will grant amnesty to people in this country. and we will see more people come into this country illegally because of the opportunities that will provide. this country will be very different. that is why i'm here. that is why i am running. having said that, incredibly optimistic he is not going to win. -- i am incredibly optimistic he is not going to win. [applause] and i think we have a great

opportunity. i think we have a wonderful opportunity to remind america in this election as to what is at stake and who we are and why we need to believe in ourselves again, and believe in the things that made our country great and believe in solutions to the problems in this country, i believe in us instead of government. we will wait and see where america is. thank you very much. >> the colorado caucuses are being held tuesday. the nominees are decided at district and state conventions in april. republican presidential candidate representative ron paul is campaigning in minnesota. non-binding caucuses are being hounded tomorrow. the 40 republican delegates will

be decided at district and state conventions in april or may. this is a little more than a half hour. >> thank you. it sounds like the cause of liberty is alive and well in minnesota. you know they have a lot of bright lights here. i cannot see you very well, but i do hear you. that is great. somewhere down front, one side or the other, my wife, carol, is with me, my wife of 55 years. right here.

i want to thank everybody who participated in the introduction. thank you for that support. and marianne certainly deserves our applause for all her hard work. and walter and the tea party movement deserve applause as well.

but most of all, you all deserve the applause because you are interested in doing something important. and that is, change in this country come and go back to our roots, decide we want to live in a free country and not a company rapidly drifting toward totalitarianism. we need to reverse that. [applause] you know, supporters as well as myself have been criticized. ever notice on tbi to criticize? [boos] but the one i get the biggest chuckle out of is that we are dangerous. of course we are dangerous. the status quo and they have been ripping us off. [applause] we are dangerous to those who abuse the monetary system first, reserve, the people in the military-industrial complex. when they have a crisis. they come begging and pleading. when it is a good time, they read all of the profit. that is going to change. [applause] if we had to summarize it into one word as to what we must do and what is the important issue, to me, the important issue is liberty.

[applause] if we look at all our political action, it should be to protect liberty. we did a pretty good job on this for a while. i would say the last 100 years, things have been slipping. i like to go after the president, but i do not as much as some others because i see this as a problem lasted for some time. if you are looking for something to criticize, it would not be hard to criticize the president. he wants to give you obamacare, which we do not need and it will be expensive. [boos] but also, whether it is the promises made in 2000 or the promises made by the current president, unfortunately, we continue to do the same thing regardless of the election. they keep the same foreign policy, the same monetary policy, the same entitlement system, the same deficits.

we need to clean house and say we want renewal of the spirit of what made this country great, and that means emphasizing your personal liberties. [applause] to defend liberty, we have to know where it comes from. it does not come from our government. sometimes they think they are passing it out, and they are always restricting. if it is their liberty rather than our liberty. but liberty comes to us from our creator, or a very natural way. we should all of our liberty and own our lives. and we should not only have life and liberty, but we ought to be able to keep the fruits of our labor. [applause] one reason why the income-tax is so detrimental, it is based on

the assumption that the government owns everything and they allow us to keep a certain percentage under their conditions. it is a sellout in the sense of liberty. that has been around since 1913. and when true liberty comes to this country once again, government will be what -- will be much smaller. we will not be the policeman of the world. we will not have runaway entitlements. [applause] and to not only will we not have income tax, but we will not have a federal reserve. [applause] [cheers and applause] who would have ever dreamed 10

years ago that we would have the attention of the federal reserve like we have today? [cheers] but it is important one to come to understand what the monetary system is all about and why inflation is bad, and why it a few people in secret can create money out of thin air. you come to realize how important it is in relationship to the welfare state. none of this would happen if you did not have the federal reserve to my ties and by the debt. how would this happen if members of congress wanted to spend all of this money, and they should not pay for it through taxation if they are going to do it. but that is difficult. people get tired of the taxes. they resort to borrowing money to much. but then that pushed interest rates up.

and they've invented the federal reserve because you can hide the inflation, you can transfer the penalty from one group to another. but ultimately, this catches up with us. in the meantime, what it does is if we do not have to pay the bills up front, it allows governments to grow. this is what happens in collaboration with the federal reserve and the politicians who got reelected by doing exactly what the people were asking for. they did that for a while until we finally consumed all of the wealth of the country. real productivity has gone overseas. the only thing left is a arwin. but that pushes interest rates up. -- the only thing left is arwin. but that pushes interest rates up. then they go to the federal reserve and a print the money. as long as that happens, government will grow. it will land, because many a country has tried this in the past.

it ends up badly. it ends up with the destruction of the currency. [applause] the one characteristic of the destruction of a currency, the depreciation of the currency is the middle class shrinks and the wealthy class gets wealthier. just look at it not in the last few years alone, but over the decades. that has generally been the case. a lot of wealth has left the middle class. we have a freer market and sound government, the middle class in this government -- in this country was the largest and wealthiest in the world. [applause] i think we lost the moral high ground many years ago, probably a little bit before the depression and in the progressive era. we lost the moral high ground because there were those that said that government would always take care of those who are having problems. and if you are a humanitarian,

you want to give free stuff out, free food, free medical care, free education, free housing, and everything will be ok. the trouble is, you can do that for a little while, but then again and people are unhappy. and guess what, the very people who are supposed to be helped with these humanitarian to our intent to transfer the wealth of iran the world and think it comes from printing press money -- wealth of around the world and think it comes from printing press money, they're hurting those they intend to help. in the last four years, the evidence is on the table. it does not work. it leads to endless wars. the economic system is deeply into debt now. that is why we have to restore the basic values of just common sense, sound money, private property, and also, we have to address this foreign policy that has given us and less wars

against enemies that we do not know who they are. we do not know why we go to war and we need to bring our troops home. [cheers and applause] the message of liberty has been around a long time. we talked a little bit about it for years ago, and a lot of people joined the effort. in the last four years, a lot more. even today, this message of liberty is spreading. we get criticized also of the foreign policy of minding our own business -- for the foreign policy of money our own business.

those who are serving and have served in the military understand this the most. guess who they support for president of the united states? [cheers and applause] most people know that i have served in the military. i was in the military for five years. [applause] there is no other candidate who has been in the military. some people say, they just a poor you because you were in the military. that is partial, but not the whole thing. -- they just support you because you were in the military. that is partial, but not a whole thing. i would never send troops into a war that is not declared where i do not know exactly who the enemy is. fight it, we need, and come home. -- to win it, and come home. [cheers and applause]

as well as going into the military, we take an oath of office to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. i can reassure you that the foreign enemies are not a threat to us. there is no one on the verge of invading us. we have more weaponry and we spend more on our military than anyone else put together. this whole idea that we are on the verge of being attacked, this was true in the 1960's when the soviets were in power. of course, they erupted themselves and their power ended. -- bay bankrupted themselves and their power ended. we have to realize we do not have to have this fear. we do not have to keep spending more and more. in fact, the more we spend, the more we send our troops overseas, the more bases we have, the more drones we used to kill people, the less safe we are.

we are not safer by running out foreign policy. [applause] not only do i believe it is a detriment to our national security, i believe it is a major part of the devastating budget deficit we have. we spend $4 trillion that was put into our our debt in the last 10 years with our overseas commitments. this bringing troops home, you do not have to pull them out of the military. immediately bringing troops, of the, suddenly that means they would be spending their money in this country, not in germany or japan or south korea. [applause] under conditions of war, whether war overseas or a war against the american people in a war that they call the war on drugs -- [boos]

-- i think we should stop all those wars. [applause] is actually a war on our civil liberties. we have seen this systematically, especially since 9/11. 9/11 was a serious, serious matter. i voted to do whatever we can to go after those individuals responsible. i was discouraged rather rapidly after 9/11 because they used it as an excuse to do something they had been planning on doing for six years. in my first speech against the iraq war, it was 1998, because it was clearly evident to me that they were going to do that. [cheers and applause] but after 9/11 occurred, it seemed to take 10 years to get one guy.

with all of the weapons and technology that we have, it takes 10 years to find him. what did we do? we went to iraq and we did nation-building and we invaded these various countries. we have lost close to 9000 americans and 44,000 severe injuries. we have hundreds of thousands of veterans today begging and pleading for help. we have an epidemic of suicide a of people coming from iraq and iran back home. obviously, it would be much better if we have not gotten involved. their real enemy right now in my estimation -- because i do believe we have a powerful, efficient military. we have to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. [applause]

once again, shortly after 9/11, within a week or two, there was a bill that was brought to the floor that had been floating around congress for a couple of years and it never had support and they could not get it passed. after 9/11, they said come on now is the time we will print -- we will pass this wonderful bill that will protect the people, the patriot act. [boos] the patriot act is very, very unpatriotic, if you want to know. [applause] that bill was passed rather rapidly. as one member of congress told me, i had to vote for it. i did not have time to read it, but it was called the patriot act. how could i go home and explain it if i voted for it? i tried to explain to him that it was his job. you have to go home and explain why you voted the right way.

[applause] but in the bill, you may have noticed this already, but in washington they name a bill and it always sounds pretty good. just as soon -- maybe not 100%, but just assume that the bill may be opposite of what they are trying to do. [applause] if they have called that the "repeal the fourth amendment act" maybe it would not have passed so readily. [applause] but the undermining of our fourth amendment rights, especially at airports, is olli consequence of the page rybak. as far as i'm concerned, private property should be protected. and not by the tsa. [applause]

if we allow it to stand and look at the pictures we have seen on television and in the newspaper at the poking and prodding of little children to elderly women in wheelchairs and making us think that we are safer because of this, it is impossible. i think it is there to intimidate us and make us compliant and listen to the government. this is what happens when you move from freedom to a tyrannical state. then why you to obey the government instead of your own heart and your own mind and your own property. [boos] the patriot act was certainly a big deal for us, but it is still ongoing. maybe you heard that the defense authorization act was passed. [boos] and i'm very impressed that you know what i'm talking about [applause]

because i'm convinced that you did not hear it on the evening news. you must be getting your news someplace else. it passed in the senate and house of. the president gave it a happy new year by signing it on new year's day. but the wicked part of this, it changed our history in many ways because civil laws should always be enforced by civil police and local police. but now, it is institutionalized, codified that the military now can arrest any american citizen, put under arrest with no lawyer, no charges, no trial, and can be put in prison indefinitely. [boos] this needs to be changed. we will not be living in a free

society and a free republic. and it will be used. they do not write the laws in order to not use them. a one year ago, the president announced -- someone came to the senate and he announced that it is now the policy of the united states that we can assassinate united states americans. where does he think he gets his power? we cannot let this stand. but to prove his point from his side, he has already used it three times. he picked a guy that he decided was a bad guy. he may well be a bad guy. he does not live here. he was not american citizen. he lives in yemen. he was not arrested and charged, but he was assassinated because he was associated with bad people. but he was never even convicted of a crime. they kill him and nobody is going to worry too much. but the next week, they decided

he had a relative that was an ally of is. they said, we need to kill him, too. they went over and dropped another drone missile on him and they killed his son. it turns out his son was 16. he was barbecuing out in the backyard. this is not what america is supposed to be about. it is supposed to be about the rule of law, and we should all be protected. [cheers and applause] our economy is not going to be revived until we come to our senses. we got into a mess because we spent too much, too much debt, borrowed too much, printed too much, regulated too much, and then we depend on the federal

reserve. but when the crisis hit, it became obvious. and it was predicted by many that it would come. and a bubble finally burst, and guess what the solution has been. spend more, tax more, and continue to do the same thing. then they wonder why they are not getting results. we have to decide whether we want to have a free-market economy with sound money, a gold backing, restraint on the federal reserve, and restraint on a congress that is spending money. [applause] i want to cut the budget by $1 trillion. [cheers] the first year. now people get nervous saying, the government doesn't spend $1 trillion, one that weaken the economy? no, it will help the economy because to spend it they have to inflate.

i met some bureaucrats and they do not have any idea how best to spend your money. only you have the idea how best to spend your money. [applause] we have to ask a couple of basic questions. the first basic question is what should the role of government be? should government be there as an entitlement system? should we believe this story at entitlements are our rights? do people have a right to medical care? do they have the right to food or to a house? no, they do not. they have a right to their life. have a right to their liberty. they have a right to keep their property. then they would be able to afford it. when government does it, they cannot get anything. [applause] the entitlement system has to

be challenged. the foreign policy has to be challenged. the monetary policy has to be challenged. and quite frankly, the others are not doing that. it is all status quo. both parties, yes, they sound different, but the goal has always been more power. the arguments are real between conservatives and liberals and republicans and democrats, but it is all over power. it is not over whether -- not over what kind of government we want. the founders knew this and they wrote a constitution. they wanted the government to be very restrained. i believe most of the reason we are in this mess is because we have failed to follow the constitution. and i believe the only way we can get of this mess is that we put those in washington who take their oath of office seriously and obey the constitution. [cheers and applause]

samuel adams was very clear, and other founders were worried about if we did not keep our republic. they worry that we would go into a dictatorship of the pure majority, which is called democracy. that means the 51%, if they go along with it, can take away the rights of the minority. if you look at the patriot act, that is what is happening. if the majority endorses it, the minority is undermined. when you get worried about not having enough -- today, we do not have 51% of the people right now that endorse everything we say. but the truth is, you do not have to. but you have to have leadership. you have to let people in the

right places. 51% of the people in this state will not be voting tomorrow. you will be voting, and you have more clout than those who do not vote. [applause] and adams advised in never requires a majority, but a minority, that they would be fed up with it and it would be irate and determined and believe in something, and our goal should be to continue the powers of life and liberty in the hearts of men. and i think that is what has happened in this country. these last four years have been so different than when i started in the 1970's. suddenly, the young people are waking up to those who dreamed all of this and are coming alive again. [applause] and it has been said that you should never doubt the small

group of people who has firm convictions, that they can change the world. never doubt it, because it is the only way it ever happened before. both in the-and in the positive, i am sure. when the communists took over, they did not have a majority vote. no, it was a month -- a determined group. a minority has to have the right viewpoint. my argument is, if you care about people, care about yourself, care about your family, you have to opt for liberty. it is liberty that offers us not only this wonderful opportunity, but also it offers us wealth. i have always been convinced -- i love my freedom. i would be giving -- willing to give up wealth if i could have my freedom. [cheers and applause]

but the wonderful thing about it is that we do not have to make a choice. history shows that the freer a society, the wealthier the society. we do not have to argue that case. the bigger the government, even when it is designed to help the poor, actually, the biggest beneficiaries are the rich. they get the money and the bailout and the benefits of the inflationary system. we should not lose this argument. and for a while, we were consuming wealth and it was more difficult because everybody was simply getting stuff. but most people now know that there's something seriously wrong with social security. all of these programs are bankrupt, and we do not cut anything. we still have another war and we are upset that the world has not joined us in going to war

in syria. soon it will be iran that we have to go into full war. [boos] but now, i think the people are realizing this is not going to last, even those in leadership that are saying we have to continue this. nobody is arguing that case. but the other thing that happens, both negatively and positively, the currency goes down rapidly and you can have chaos anna that is -- chaos politically and economically. the other thing is the ballooning out and joining of a movement sometimes moves rather rapidly. i think we are on the verge of that. we have already seen the opening. and it is not just a few people in think tanks. this is all around. it is getting into our university and into the media. and thank goodness for that. [applause]

talking about the internet, it is a good example of the success that so many of you participated in. the stock online privacy act might stop because of you -- the stop online piracy pact might stop because of you. [applause] when you speak out, politicians listen. they do not have much conviction. you are in charge. that is what this campaign is all about. you have to get out your message. [applause] but there is every reason to look at this optimistically because more people are discovering what happened and young people are coming alive and those who have been waiting

for this are willing to join. i had an interview the other day, and i was complemented -- which is rather rare. he said, young people come out to your functions and they seem really excited. but he said, in the last six months, it is more than just the young people coming out. and i said, yes, that is because we are all thinking very young these days. [applause] liberty is a -- if this liberty was a young idea, it is only tested for a short time frame. tierney is the old idea. we do not need any more tyranny. it started with the magna carta. we do not want our government even undermining the principles of the magna carta. we're not going to let them do that. we're going to continue this movement to which the country up, change our government, and continue to win the elections. thank you very much. [cheers and applause) [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> republican presidential candidates mitt romney held a campaign rally in centennial, colorado today. republicans hold a non-binding caucuses tomorrow, with 36 delegates heading straight to conventions in april. this is a little more than 20 minutes.

♪ ["born free"] >> that is quite a welcome. you do not get a better welcome than a colorado welcome. i will tell you that. [cheers and applause] thank you so much. you on army and your honor our cause, our mission, our effort. i know there are a lot of people in this country who feel that our best days are past us. if they are not. at the future is bright. america is back. [applause] we have in the heart of the american people all we need to make sure that america get back on the right track. we get back the white house, get back the senate, if we get a amera contract to create jobs and continue to be -- we get america on track to create jobs and continued to be the shining city on a hill. [applause]

it was three years ago almost to the data and that president obama was on the "today" show and he said, if he could not turn the economy around in three years, we are looking at a one-term proposition. we are here to collect. [cheers] in this country, we have almost 24 million people that are out of work or have stopped looking for work and are just in part- time jobs and need full-time work. do you know what has happened to median incomes of america? over the last four years, they have dropped 10%, the median income, even as the cost of gasoline and food is out. -- are up. i have had the opportunity to go into various homes and i was surprised. i was getting my hair cut by a

guy in his 70's who thought he was going to retire a lot earlier, but could not afford it. i have met retired couples who thought this would be the best time of their life and it tied to take -- and have had to take part-time jobs. in some respects, the president has done everything wrong. just last week he tried to take a dog for the fact that unemployment is down to 8.3%. -- he tried to take a bow for the fact that unemployment is down 8.3%. [boos] remember, he said if we let him borrow $7 billion he would have it below 8%. three years later, it is still above 8%. that is failure. [cheers] and there is another reason he

does not deserve to take it out. -- take a bow. everything he has done has made it harder to put americans back to work. do you think obamacare has made it easier for americans to get back to work? do you think daud-frank has made it easier for banks to make loans to new businesses? do you think the national relations board telling boeing they cannot build a factory in south carolina because it is a right to work state, the you think that put americans back to work? do you think trillion dollar deficit every year -- by the way, the president is on track to put in place almost as much public debt as of the other presidents combined, you think that helps businesses in america? there you have it. his policies did not help put america back to work. it slow down the economy. he was elected at a critical

time when the nation faced a real challenges. this president wasn't -- was elected to lead. he decided to follow. now it is his time to get out of the way. [cheers] this campaign is more than just about replacing president obama, as important as that is. in my view, this election is going to be a time to decide what america is going to be. what kind of country we are going to have. because there are people in this country who believe that fundamentally, the government ought to be an actor and it should tell us how we live our lives. and their government is far more intrusive than anything we've had before. i do not want to become a social welfare state.

look at the differences between the past that america could follow. president obama, if he is president for four more years, it is trillion dollar deficits every year. it will inevitably hit a wall, like greece or italy did, and there is no one big enough to pull us out. that is the course we are on. if i am president instead, i will slow down -- if i cannot slow down the rate of government spending, i will cut it. [cheers] right now, government consumes -- federal government consumes about 25% of our total economy. i will get that down to 20% within four years. and one more thing, i will finally get on track to have a balanced budget. [cheers]

there are some other differences. president obama seems to have adopted something you see in some countries, just not ours. we call it crony capitalism you use the money of the taxpayers to take care of your friends, our you have bureaucrats decide how the economy ought to work. for instance, when general motors got in trouble, and instead of going through the bankruptcy process where it could come out on its own or perhaps get help from others from time to time, instead, he handed over to uaw, the people who helped in his campaign. and you have the national labor relations board were the right to work states are going to be penalized. and then you have the strangest thing, where the president and his friends are actinolite venture capitalists. they looked at something like solyndra and decided to give a $500 million. [boos] that is not just a bad idea

because we lost $500 million. it is also a bad idea because when the president chooses a winner, when he says his view for the best solar energy company is solyndra, think about all of the other companies that cannot get capital for their idea. and the government has chosen a winner. he did the same thing with a battery company that has now gone bankrupt. there are a couple of electric car companies. and what are all of these things -- what do all of these things have in common? they are all contributors to his campaign. i want to return america to the genius and innovative spirit of american enterprise. [cheers]

this president says a lot of the right things from time to time, but then does not do them. the other day in his state of the union address, he said he was a "for all of the above sources of energy." nuclear, coal, oil, gas, as well as the renewables. but what we have seen over the last three years, a president who does not like kohl, who does not like drilling for oil -- he has used the epa to keep us from both. as a result, america can anticipate spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year buying energy from other people when we can maintain it here ourselves, or from canada with the keystone pipeline. [cheers]

the right course is to build that pipeline, develop our own resources and finally get america to be energy secure. [cheers] on one of the most critical issues that we all care about, our health care, this president has the view that government bureaucrats can take care of your health care better than you and your doctor can. i will repeal obamacare and return health-care to you and your physician. [applause] the president came to office and said he was going to meet with ahmadinejad, chavez, came jong-il. how has that worked out? even they did not want to meet with him. the right course is to stand

with our restaurants. i will stand with our friends around the world. [applause] by the president's own standards, he has failed. he was on "a today's show -- the today show"this morning, and he said he deserves a second term. you believe that? i looked up the record. i look at what has happened. he said in his first year he would propose a comprehensive immigration reform plan. he did not.

he said he would lower unemployment. he has not. he said he would dissuade iran from becoming a nuclear nation. he did not do that either. this is a president who said he was going to work with republicans to craft a bipartisan health care solution. he did not do that either. this is a president who presided over and an economy where their median income has dropped 10%. this administration has failed. that is why we need a new president. [applause] you guys are lucky to live in such a beautiful place. this is a majestic place. i understand a person from massachusetts came out here and climb to pikes peak, and after

she was on the peak, she sat down and wrote a song, "america the beautiful." she was here. this is what inspired her. oh, beautiful, for spacious skies, she saw that here. you are fortunate to have such beauty around you to remind you of this great land. [applause] another verse, she said, so beautiful, for heroes and who more than self their country love and mercy more than life. do we have any veterans in the room? please raise your hand. thank you. [applause] thank you for your service.

the beauty of america who is not just land. the beauty of america is the people. there is one other verse. the idea is the people drafted a concept so we are enduring. what makes us the nation we are is not just our dna. what makes us the richest nation in the world who is the values, the principles that continue to rein in america. when they wrote the declaration of independence, they tend revolutionary words.

the creator gave every human being our rights. i am distressed as i watched our president try to infringe upon those rice. -- our own rights. did you understand this administration argued before the supreme court and a church should not be able to determine who the ministers are but the government decides, and by the way, did you know some members of the court are a pretty liberal? they decided, 9-0, president obama was wrong.

just this last week this same administration said that churches and the administration's they run have to provide for employees free of charge, contraceptives, morning after pills, the like. think about what that does for people who do not share those views. we must have a president willing to protect americans right to worship god according to our own conscience. [applause] the creator endowed us with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and

the pursuit of happiness. you guys know that one. any college students here? one. for these students, i hope you do not gloss over the phrase, the pursuit of happiness. what happened with the founding documents is the belief we would not be limited in our pursuit of happiness by the circumstance of our birth, by the place of our birth. we would be free to chart a course in our lives, and by virtue of that being given to us, people all over the world seeking opportunity came here. this is where they wanted to come and created the most powerful nation in the history of the earth. this has driven us to be the most innovative nation.

i do not think the president understands this like you do. i value the founding documents. i value the principles that made us a great nation we are. i do not want to fundamentally transform america. i want to restore the principles of what made us a nation we are. this is a critical time in our nation's history. we will either keep on r.o.a. or live within our means. we will have government tell us what kind of health care we have or we will maintain freedoms we enjoy. we will have a government that protects religious freedom or we will have a government that tells us what kind of conscience and we should have. we will have a nation that now stands with our enemies -- that does not stand up against our enemies, or we will have a nation that stands up for our

friends time and time again. these are critical times. i happen to believe because we are extraordinarily patriotic people, that if we are led by men and women who will tell the truth and lead with -- and live with integrity, who know what makes america america, and who know how to draw upon patriotism, and we will draw upon any challenges we have. i will keep america strong and the shining city upon a hill. thank you so much. thank you. and what a welcome. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪

♪ ♪ ["born free" playing] ♪

♪ ♪

♪ >> our road to the white house coverage continues tomorrow night with the results of caucuses in colorado and minnesota and a primary in misery. caucus's continue all week in maine. later in the month, contests in arizona and michigan, followed by washington's caucuses at the beginning of march. you can see the latest video of the gop presidential candidates and president obama campaigning online at > c-span.org. you can read with the candidates and others like you are saying about the presidential race. all of that and more at c-

span.org/campaign2012. >> house and senate lawmakers continued negotiations to expand payroll tax cut. they will continue their work on tuesday. all sides agree it should be extended. the focus is on how to pay for it. >> i do not hear disagreement in the philosophy that if people get a ged that enhances their lives and enhances the ability for them to get a job down the road. i do not hear a disagreement with that. i hear an excuse as to why not to do it. the fundamental philosophy to rearm people with an education, so when they go into the workforce they have an additional tool. >> to link the social insurance program, designed and functioning to provide financial support when you lose your job,

to a climate that you have to be in this training, i think, first of all, will not work for some of the practical side considerations. second, i think it contradicts the notion you are suggesting, that the more education you have today the better off you will be in this economy. >> watch the rest of this media -- meeting online. all at c-span.org/videolibrary. >> coming up, a forum on economic growth and job creation. in about two hours, new gingrich and rick santorum talk about energy policy at a form in colorado. parts of the federal aviation administration closed last year because the house and senate could not agree on a funding agency. after passing 23 bills, congress

came to an agreement on long- term funding. on tomorrow's washington journal, we will talk with -- about the faa. also tomorrow, the house education and the work force committee holds a hearing on president obama's recess appointment. we will talk about that with a congressman from arizona. we will look at the federal election commission enforcement of campaign finance law. washington journal is live everyday at 7:00 a.m. eastern. now, a form of business owners and investors talking about economic growth.

this hourlong event was hosted by a group founded by eric cantor. analysts include the former staples ceo and later the founder of american online. -- and later, the founder of american online. good morning -- >> good morning. thank you for coming up. i am president of the network. we are policy and issue advocacy organization dedicated to issues like economic growth, free markets, and job creation.

i want to welcome you all here this morning. i want to thank my team for putting on this event. i also want to thank my friends from the job critter's alliance. we are here to focus on growth. growth means a stronger economy, more jobs, and growth means a better future for all of us. today, you are going to hear from some of america's top of experts, business leaders, and policy-makers. our goal is to bring to the forefront ideas that can be part of the debate in washington. thank you for coming. i want to take a moment to introduce our moderator, david thompson. he is a best-selling author, it pfizer, and speaker.

-- author, the adviser, and speaker. -- advisor, and speaker. he wrote a book about how of top companies made it to the top. he has been described as a management guru who uncovers patterns behind billion dollar firms. he has been studying growth and is a leading expert in this for more than 20 years, working at companies such as motel and hewlett-packard -- nortel and hewlett-packard. i want to thank you for coming today. we are going to do a number of these and events. this is just the first. we think this -- we are going to be an important voice here in washington. >> thank you.

good morning everybody. the question i had during the 2000 recession is what is the success pattern of a growth company? the recession, we know what happened. i wanted to be a better ceo of a growth company. i started doing research. the odds of failure are greater than the odds of success. little did i think i would end up writing a book. having come from the can see and company, i found that i wanted to find that a recent pattern. i wanted to find something that others could follow. little did i expect to be here today. i would like to introduce my panel. they are all high-growth company ceos of different sizes. on my right is the president of a process consultant, running a

firm at an energy industry. we are applying top gun flight techniques to the safety of the energy industry. i found of growth companies in different industries. i called a man who is now with highland the consumer funds. he is the founder of staples. i love talking to him because he built the first eight holes and became. 20 years later, -- the first staples and nobody came. on my far left, a retired repairman. i met him. i wondered how a company could grow a billion dollar business to compete with wal-mart. is it possible for a small company to take on the big the

life? what is in common with each of these three ceos is they are role models for the best growth companies. they use common of fundamentals. in the next 45 minutes, i am going to try to demonstrate that to you. we can use, and graves fundamentals and common management practices. -- we can use common growth fundamentals and, and management practices. i am going to show you a couple charts to set the stage. on your right, i have written a recent report trying to quantify america's growth companies. one lesson i have learned is we all feel growth through our own experiences. if you are from wall street, you think it is about market cap. if you are in finance, it is always about cash flow. what i found is that sales,

revenue or sales, customer demand is the hardest line item for a management team to achieve. i started by looking at the patterns of sales growth companies, from a million to 1 billion. there are small companies that stay small, that continued to grow with nearly. there are the mount everest maneuvers. some like to joke that is why i lost my hair. then there are these revenue growth companies. when they break up of being a small business, they go all the way to a billion. in canada, they call it a hockey stick. it turns out to be quantitatively 50 million in sales. the odds, if you have a high sales growth rate after 50 million sales, the odds of the company going to a billion is over 80%. it is possible to grow a billion

dollar business. it is a statistical fact. i hope the ceos will demonstrate that to you today. whether you look back in history at facebook or staples. you will find that they all have a common pattern. if you normalize america's growth companies since 1980, at 50 million in revenue, they all have financial growth. the time to 1 billion is 4, 6, and 12 years. every company that has gone public since then has fallen one of these patterns. this was true when i found it five years ago. it has been true for the past five years. it is true today. based on a four-year projected. it is going to be true for the next decade.

the implication is whether you are a startup, how can you achieve, hunting or exponential sales growth? which means, -- achieved, pounding or exponential sales growth? -- achieve compounding or exponential sales growth. the effect is job creation. sales is more correlated with job creation than any other growth fundamental. it turns out that 11,000 public companies since 1980 in america, as a public companies because he can find the numbers. only 4% made it to a billion in revenue, like starbucks and staples. the -- they accounted for two- thirds of the jobs created, two-

thirds of the market value, 70% of the sales, and 70% of the tax. i call that the law of disproportionate impact. a $1 billion revenue business is equal to 1000 small businesses in terms of job creation. it is about success rate. 60% of these companies are no longer in existence. our challenge is, not only creating more companies, but getting them to go to a billion and beyond in revenue. they are the role models. we have a pattern to follow. if we look at the sales growth companies from small businesses all the way to $30 million in revenue, all the way to apple, i am not here to say size of business, they are all growing across all sizes. there is a cyclical pattern to revenue growth of sales. it is a year's peak to peak.

it has been that way for the past 50 years. that is how it works at standard and poor's. what has also been interesting is, through the recession, we have had a rising number of companies, except for this one. we went all the way back to 1984 when bill gates started microsoft. that is why we have been struggling with this recession. we should have had more growth companies through this recession. it has impacted job creation. we have now danced back. we are back up to the 2002 level before the recession. we have growth but we do not have proper coverage. we are still coming out of a revenue growth recession. every presidential election occurs at the peak. through every recovery, if you were on wall street, it is

different on every recovery. from a of fundamental, we are changing in this recovery. this recovery is different. in 2003, it was led by consumer spending. this recovery is being led by more economic-driven industries like health care, energy, farm and biotech. why? we are spending money in health care. it is not as dependent on consumer spending. it is good news. many of these companies human no. many of them you may not. the hidden diamonds are the companies you do not know. they of the next growth leaders for america. it is important, i cannot stress enough, now is the time to create growth companies.

i wanted to impart a sense of opportunity and urgency. that being said, we have a challenge. we of the number one nation and earth -- on earth. we had a 50% share in 2003. today we have 40%. we are not growing. we are still number one, but america, asia is now generating 30% and that north america is generating a 18%. to be a growth leader, we have to grow more. that being said, i want to share this with the. just looking at the public data. this comes from the annual report. the number of jobs created by

companies has been positive every year in the past decade independent of up or down cycles. in 2008, sales growth companies graded for the dozen jobs. -- created 400,000 jobs. i do not think there is a definition. i would challenge is to create more jobs. going into the 1992 to 1997 period, the net cumulative of that of adding 11,000 jobs. in 2003 to 2006, it was four million. -- 6 million. we are on the path to do four million. the number of jobs created is proportional to the number of sales growth companies. we need to create either 1000 total, which is 18, do we want

to create two million or 11 million? growth is systematic. we use the term growth engine. what does that mean? we need a spark in every cylinder. we have to think about hiring -- firing on all cylinders. the faster we hit that, the more companies we are going to create, the more jobs we are going to create. i am here to show you, when we talk about growth, business is a system. in total, it is a growth economy. something i am starting to call groethonomics. it is not about gdp. it is about growth fundamentals. these companies are the leaders. it is a fact that when these companies grow, their suppliers

grow and. -- grow. would you like to open up? >> sure. >> tell us about your company and your perspective on growth. >> thank you. good morning everybody. i worked at a company. we are unique, we teach and apply the best practices for military aviation, commercial aviation, and space operations. we build into our clients who are focused on the oil and gas business. why are fighter pilot and navy seals going to drilling rigs to drain the cruise? the answer is,-- to train the crews. the operation is similar.

the hazards faced every day are similar. in terms of bringing gawdy to the client, the value we bring comes in greeting a culture of debriefing and improving operations. the checklist culture, there is a lot of talk about that. finally, on training. for a pilot flying a multimillion-dollar jet, the training peace is natural. these training rakes are multimillion-dollar operations. the training behind high you get someone to be successful -- how you get someone to be successful has an area to improve. we have been in business for five years. we started with three people. how do we get this stuff out to drilling rigs? now we employ close to 100 employees and contractors.

we were number 100 on the inc 500 list. it has been a great ride on the growth cycle bringing of value to our clients. there is always a way we can do better. i am glad to have the opportunity to share how small company is affected by what happens here in washington. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> the chance to talk about energy and what has to be done. i think this is a remarkable point in american history. you have an administration whose policies are wrong on national security, on american job creation, and on cost of living. i will explain what i mean. this is the most and the american energy administration we have ever had. -- anti-american energy administration we have ever had. [applause] you have the highest cost of gasoline we have ever had. if you are a writer at the new york times in the red the subway

to work, it may not occur -- and you ride the subway to work, it may not occur to you that the high price of gasoline is a problem. if you are the rest of the country, the high price of gasoline has a lot of effects. it affects the cost of groceries. everything is delivered by truck. it affects the cost of everything made by plastic. it affects the costs structure for people. we had a woman who came to an event in nevada who said to me, she was rationed to two trips a week. i was one of her two trips. let me start at the most practical level. the obama administration's high- priced, anti-american model is

very dangerous and very destructive. let me put it in context. just the last 48 hours. you have an egyptian government which is threatening to try american hostages, almost a repeat of the jimmy carter weakness of 1979 and 1980. you have a pakistani government which has arrested the doctor who helped us find bin laden, instead of praising the person who helped us find the most wanted person, they have arrested him. you have an e runyan -- an iranian government that has been practicing how to close the strait of hormuz. faced with all of that, irrational, a serious american government would have a program on american energy.

they would say, our goal is to become so dependent -- independent that we do not care what they do. [applause] i have a very simple formula for that. you want to measure what our goal is. it is to ensure that no american president ever again does to a saudi king. -- bows to a saudi king. [applause] how do we do that? we replace whole bureaucracies. i am for closing the environment the protection agency and replacing it with a new agency with brand new people. [applause] the environmental solutions agency would have to have as a first test common sense. [laughter]

you can talk to any farmer anywhere in america about the proposed the regulations and you will have an idea about what i neemean. they had this meeting with an executive who was explaining that epa had control over air and that dust was a particular matter and that they were concerned with the fact that in arizona you get dust storms. this is a sign that something is going wrong. they were out there to try to figure it out. you, during part of the year, could you water the areas that produce the dust storms? [laughter] these guys said, arizona is a desert. it is called a does it because we do not have much water. this was the kind -- it is

called aid does it because we do not have much water. -- called a desert because we do not have much water. this was the kind of dialogue. it will encourage entrepreneurs and incentives to solve problems with new and better solutions not with red tape, litigation, and lawsuits. that would be a help. second, we should overhaul the department of the interior. the obama administration said they were going to lift the moratorium on the golf and replace it with a permanent system. they would not issue any permits. there was no moratorium. you just had to apply for a permit. the permit system was there. i was in new orleans, people were so angry. people say, they are angry at

the obama administration. these are $80,000 a year jobs. an economy that has economic problems, these are good jobs. the administration was so of of touch with reality, they did not realize these rigs move. they thought they could put a moratorium out and score political points. the panel had advised against a moratorium. they did this political moratorium. the first rig the movement to egypt. it took 80 dozen dollar a year jobs -- $80,000 a year jobs. the second move was the best. the guy in charge was a hard- core conservative active -- conservative. he said, because of political

instability in the united states, we are going to drill off of the condo. -- congo. [laughter] at a time of high unemployment, at a time when we need more american energy to be safer in the world market, the president vetoes the keystone pipeline. this kills 30,000 construction jobs. kills jobs in houston processing the oil and shipping it. it blocks the u.s. from having a pipeline bringing oil that we could use in a crisis if we had a problem with the middle east. the canadians are looking at a partnership with china to build the pipeline due west to vancouver. what i have said is, if i am the

president of the united states come on the first day, i will sign an executive order allowing the construction of the keystone pipeline so that canada can have an american partner on january 20. [applause] pase] let me make two other points about energy. i am focusing on oil and guess. two more points above oil and guess. -- about oil and gas. we should allow -- i would open up federal land for oil and gas and for minerals. when you realize the u.s. government operates 85% of nevada and the bureau of land management does not want to

allow any development. the reason north dakota has 3.5 percent and unemployment and has had seven straight tax cuts is because the oil is on private land. if north dakota had been public land we would have had no idea how big the formation is. the formation is 25 times bigger than the u.s. geological survey thought it was. the volume of oil available in north dakota is staggering the bigger than anybody thought 10 years ago. we would know none of that if it had not been on private land. i am dedicated to opening up federal lands, not national parks. we own 69% of alaska. alaska is twice the size of texas. [laughter]

perry flinches, but he is a good sport. 69% of alaska's is 1.5 texases. you could give an environmentalist half of texas. you would have an area the size of texas to open up. the largest reserves are in alaska. a base and that is estimated to have as much oil and gas as the in -- basin that is estimated to have as much will and gas as the entire gulf of mexico. we have more energy in the united states than any other country. more anti-energy. i am for a profoundly changing it. the last point i want to make about oil and gas, this is true

of all energy systems. it takes a fair amount of money to explore, develop, build the pipelines. the tax program, if you go to newt.org you can see a program designed to create jobs. first, we have zero capital gains tax so hundreds of millions of dollars will pour into the u.s. second, we have a total of 5% corporate tax rate which is an irish tax rate -- a 12.5% corporate tax rate which is an irish tax rate. it allows our companies to compete successfully worldwide. it means general electric would actually pay taxes. [applause] maybe the most important thing for the development of oil and

gas and minerals is we had 100% expense iing. any new equipment you buy at the right doc in one year. the goal is to make the -- you buy you write off in one year. if you want to draw unemployment compensation, you have to sign up for a training program so you are learning something during the. we are attrit -- up during the period we are paying you. [applause] let me say finally, i am for a system of energy. i think it is so vital for our economy. you keep $500 billion a year at home, you are going to create

new jobs. it is so vital for our national security and our standard of living. this is a country built around an expensive energy. to have the -- inexpensive energy. t have the epa have a proposal that would get 25 cents a gallon? i am for developing every source of energy. the current proposals for electricity would mean we would start having done a lot because of of our own government. this is the kind of -- having brown outs because of our own government. this is the kind of thing we have to stop. i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> thank you. we do plan to have the moderator's pose some questions to you.

i want to applaud the idea of abolishing the epa. i would like for you to consider the endangered species act as part of that problem. one of our concerns is fuel taxes. there is a proposed additional increase to those taxes. that is troubling to agricultural producers and folks in the west who have to travel large distances every day. it is complicating to our life. what would you propose in other ways to bring revenue into the treasury outside of energy production? >> let me say, i support saving endangered species. i also support common sense. when you are told that the largest bas andin -- basin in

the lower 48 may be closed down for development because there may be a lizard that is so endangered it covers thousands of square miles. there are so few of them we are going to close down dozens of square miles? there must be so many of them. what has happened is the environmentalists had infiltrated over the last 40 years the people on leapt to are against business. the use the environment as -- on the left who are against business. they use the environment as an excuse. i am for endangered species being preserved. there has to be common sense applied to that. i would like to see a substantial amount -- imagine that we had $500 billion a year.

the royalty affect of that to the federal government would be remarkable. i would like to see two-thirds go to pay down the deficit. [applause] and managed to have the -- i managed to have the sneezers. i would like to see one third turn towards infrastructure. i would like to see a displacement of royalties. also displacement of royalties to rebuild our infrastructure. i do not know the case in colorado. in iowa, the number of county and state bridges that are beginning to be inadequate is

very significant. part of it is as farm production has improved, and has wee bit more corn, we get bigger yields. we are carrying more tonnage over these bridges. you are going to have a nationwide challenge. i would like to see some break where maybe two-thirds of the royalties go towards the debt and one third would go towards infrastructure. >> thank you. we appreciate your support of energy issues. the united states has ordered 100 years' supply of domestic natural gas. these resources could be transformative, both for economic development and energy security. in the context of free market,

what is the proper role of government in guiding the development of energy production? the chemical industry, reducing emissions, or exports? >> is a very good question. two quick things about the supply of natural gas. this is a perfect case study in why liberals are so consistently wrong in their effort. [laughter] the reason you had an explosion in the volume of natural gas is we have taken a technology that was developed for offshore, which enables them to go down dozens of feet in one hole and go of 4 miles -- go down thousands of feet in one hole

and go off for miles in every direction. it was designed offshore where it is expensive to have these big rigs. the more production you get, the bigger your return. somebody to get that model could work on land. -- somebody figured out that model could work on plan. we thought shale was not economically recoverable. they applied an abortion doctor and technology on shell -- an ocean-going technology on shale. we went to a 100 plus supply. let me give you the side story. we are a dynamic society of constant innovation. there is no peak best. those are terms used by the left

to justify telling the rest of us we have to have austerity so they can control our lives. i want to unleash the american people in order to have us produce. i do believe in shaping the market in the sense that alexander hamilton described. for example, we have always allowed depletion on will wells which is a tax break. we have a variety of tax breaks used in a variety of different ways. the difference between that and what obama does is he wants the bureaucracy to pick winners and losers. it is one thing to say, anyone who wants to go out and find oil gets it right off. i want to allow one her% -- allow a 100% write off of new

equipment every year. you are going to have a boom in investment. we are shaping america. i do not want a bureaucrat to decide between company a and company b. if they were good venture capitalists there would not be getting a government salary. [laughter] [applause] i am deeply opposed -- this is why, when i propose that we have a bold new approach in space, i did not oppose any extra money. i propose taking the money nestle wastes and using it as incentive to see what we can get out of the private sector. not to pick winners and losers. how would we know you got to the moon? you would be on the moon. it would be obvious. [laughter] you would not have to have five

of obama of's friends go to the white house and say, can we but -- can we pretend we went to the moon? remember that lindbergh flew to paris by himself for clinton but thousand dollars. there was a prize. -- for $25,000. there was a prize. >> we are looking at record high gasoline prices. they are projected to go even higher. starting with keystone is a great place to try to change policy. what other steps we take to lower prices? >> -- would you take to lower prices? >> there would be a series of executive orders, one is the keystone pipeline.

one would that all restrictions in the gulf of mexico and would enable people to start developing the gulf of mexico. there is an interest in lag here. you win the election in november. you want to know when the economy is born to start recovering? 9:00 at night on election day -- when the economy is going to start recovering? 9:00 at night on election day when people realize he is gone. [applause] the mood is going to become a obama is gone, i think i'm going to hide -- going to be, obama is gone, i think i am going to hire somebody. i will ask congress to stay in session on january 3 to repeal the three bills. i want them to repeal obamacare. [applause] i want them to repeal dodd- frank. [applause]

and i want them to repeal sarbanes oxley. [applause] i want all three of those on my desk when i am sworn in so i can sign them my first day. then we will have a series of executive orders. they will begin to open up how the department of the interior deals with federal lands, the gulf of mexico, and my goal would be to send such a powerful signal. everybody who is in the oil and gas industry is going to know on election night, these things are coming on january 20. it means, they will begin moving. the industry will start moving. people will start moving. people move on the expectation of future behavior.

the market response to future predictions. $20 a barrel. my guess is -- this is reagan's birthday, he is 101 years old today. [applause] the first executive order reagan signed deregulated gas. we had rationing on opposite days. if your license plate was odd or even, you had days you designated to buy gas on. reagan signed deregulation. the price of gasoline fell. i think it is fair to say you will see gasoline prices fall dramatically if we bring supply online. >> thank you. we do have a couple of questions from the audience.

we have some microphones here. we will start right here. >> mr. speaker, welcome to colorado. do you believe in human induced climate change? [laughter] >> i saw the porcine -- coors sign. i was happy all the way. i believe we do not know. i am an amateur paleontologist. the planet has changed its temperature in number of times. we were in the museum in chicago looking at dinosaurs. if you look at the in the arctic, you figure it must have been a lot warmer. i am happy to take prudent measures that are not very

expensive. if we can find and expensive safe nuclear power, i am for it. there are a lot of things you can do. what i would not do is turn power over to the bureaucracy to run the entire company -- country. i have always opposed cat and trade. many of you have seen it, the ed i did with nancy pelosi is the dumbest thing i have done -- the advertisement i did with nancy pelosi is the dumbest thing i have done. i never said i was in favor of cap and trade. you can go to newt.org. and see video of the testimony. the dutch have been faced with the ocean for a long time. they did not adopt and al gore approach of lowering the sea. they built dikes.

there are a lot of ways to solve problems. [applause] >> thank you. >> thank you. one more question. thank you. >> speaker gingrich, a little comment. regulation seems to go hand in hand with energy in the high cost of energy. before we get too far, you need to be aware that milk is not a hazard this bill -- hazardous spill and it took an enormous effort to convince the epa of that. there was a lot of effort to convince them. the other question, it is one thing to develop new energy and

create new energy, it is also important to conserve the energies we have. the example being, the trucking industry, two hundred industries have worked with the department of transportation trying to change regulation which would cut the weight limits on some- -- semis. it is 820% increase in the load. -- a 20% increase in load. they decided to table this. not realizing it had been studied. it is very helpful of here in this part of the country where the majority of a list of troubles by truck. it makes sense. where would -- the majority of our stock travels by truck. it makes sense.

where would you stand on this? >> i am conservative. if i were liberal i would be for regulations that do not make sense. [laughter] the milk one was always one of as fascinating moments. -- those fascinating moment. i want to make two points. i am not against all regulation. when i taught environmental studies, the river had caught fire in downtown cleveland. i tell my friends, it is not a good sign when you have enough pollution that a river is catching fire. we had tennessee with the sulfuric acid had turned off all of the trees for several miles

-- had turned off all of the trees for several miles. --burned off all of the trees for several miles. i want to have a new agency. there are certain limits to what we are willing to keep. one of the reasons i am different, one of the reasons i decided to run, knowing how hard it would be, we have had republican presidents. we have had republican presidents with a republican congress. they did not change the epa. they slow down the rate of decay. they generated the same regulations year after year. after having studied it for a long time, i think there is a virtue to having somebody who knows what they are doing. we have tried two years of an amateur. i think you need to replace the

agency if you are going to make it work. the people are committed to a world the which is incompatible with our local freedoms and free enterprise. a gingrich hesitancy it would be very controversial. -- gingrich presidency would be very controversial. we would fight for fundamental change in a way that none of the other candidates have begun to think about. [applause] >> we have one more question we would like to ask. >> i am representing a german company in the energy field. we have developed some unique systems in the solar field, wind turbines, storage batteries. we can to colada two years ago.

we invested millions about dollars. we do have a situation where events like solyndra have put a dent on positive developments. would you have a mandated program for energy. that is what it took in germany to spawn over three dozen companies that did not exist -- over 3000 companies that did not exist. >> no, i would not. [applause] let me tell you why. a mandate has no cost attached to it. you watch california where they do these things all the time. they are destroying business in california. they are destroying the cost of living. i will create a permanent tax

credit so you have the ability of your decisions. it is irrational for the congress to pass a tax credit. you have no long-term stability. i am happy -- i recognize, i am shipping part of the energy environment to favor the growth of new technology. we subsidized air mail in the 1930's. it is a conscious effort to create a new industry. we did not pick one company or another. i would say, i would be happy to talk to you about had to have a long term, stable tax credit you can count on. i do not want to go to in no cost attached mandate system in which you end up with systems which are incompatible and can be legally opposed because they

fit a formula. that is an invitation to go to waste on part of the new technologies and lower the standard of living. [applause] and i done? -- am i done? one brief political commercial. if you decide you want large change in washington and the think having someone who helped ben -- balance the budget for four years and worked with clinton on a program that created a 11 million jobs, if that makes sense for you, i would ask you, when you go home today, on bass boat, e-mailed, telephone, -- on facebook, e- mail, a telephone, to encourage people to vote for me tomorrow. i am very thrilled to be here

today. i hope you have a good afternoon. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thank you. a great opportunity to colorado school of mines. we look forward to this discussion today, talk about an initiative that is important to me. i have brought a couple of members of my family. i have been married to my wife

for 21 years. we have seven children. i would two oldest have taken of semesters from colle, a year from college to help osama out on the campaign. that is my daughter elizabeth -- to help us out on the campaign. that is my daughter elizabeth and my son john. [applause] i am anxious to talk about this. i come from pennsylvania. pennsylvania is a great energy state. it is a great mining state. i have a history in the mining industry. not myself personally. unlike other folks who have run for president, who have owned it will wells, my grandfather was a coal miner. a different end of the spectrum. my grandfather came to western

pennsylvania in 1927. he worked in a coal mine in a little comtown. itas a company town. he got paid with coupons. you got paid with coupons. you live in housing with company housing. you had to shop at the company store. i have been to the house. the water was a quarter of a mile away. that was the environment, when my dad came and came to america , it was an experience that my grandfather ended up working in those mines and a 1958, when he was 72 years old. my grandfather, he would be proud of me, he would not

because of the party a represented. he was a union democrat. -- he would not be proud of the party i represented. he was a union democrat. when i was growing up as a kid, there were three pictures on the wall. there was a picture of jesus, the pope, and john f. kennedy. i do have some background in the coal industry. my grandfather lived for the rest of his life at the mouth of the mind. -- mine. there was an orange creek. i used to play around in the coal fields. when i left, went t school at penn state. also, i worked for a senator who represented the coal industry.

i worked closely with that industry forany years. then, when i became interested in running for office, i continued to do a lot and worked in the energy industry. we had a little oil and gas industry. the gas industry w ok. the mining was not what it was. all of the mining has moved appeared to the west. we were dealing with issues. in the recent years, we have had a change in pennsylvania. we have a change based on the fact that hydro-fracking, deep drilling. we were fighting about where to locate facilities along the east coast. liquiedif -- liquefied natural

gas, we were deficient. thanks in part to a lot of funds, fracking and shale, we now have two $60 since -- $2.60 gas. we were trying to find people to get into the industry. if you look at the unemployment rate in pennsylvania, it is lower, why? because of energy. we are excited about that. we are not excited with how the administration is dealing with hydrocracking -- hydro- fracking. what they have done to the coal industry, delays and the niles for permits. the war on coal-fired power plant. -- plants. we have already seen six shut down.

as many as 60 may shut them as a result of these new regulations. the clean air act regulations that are being put on a cold- fired power plant. -- on coal-fired power plants. we have well over 100 years of oil and a couple hundred years -- we do not even know how much gas we have. the president cannot look again that as an asset. he looks at this as a problem. -- the president does not look at that as an asset. he looked at death as a problem. -- he looks at that as a problem. i see it as one of the greatest assets we have. to create affordable energy to keep the standard of living in this country as high as possible.

and sometimes carry a chart with me that shows the cost of energy in the country in the standard of living in that country. you can see, the cheaper the energy in the country, the higher the standard of living. it is a correlation to the abundance and affordability of energy and the quality of life. we have to remind people that we went into a recession in 2008. people forget what. they thought it was a house and bubble. that was because we had a spike in energy prices. people had to pay so much to air conditioning and heat their homes. this is the reality of how important energy is.

we put a plan together that is very big on growing energy. particularly, the energy assets that we have a competitive advantage in. that does t mean we need government-run programs. i believe we need to have an ergy policy where we eliminate all subsidies. a love everybody to go out and consume and have a regulatory environment that focuses on reasonable environment of compliance, -- environmental compliance, driven by actual science. and we have safety policies that are compliance-oriented, not intended to punish and make it too expensive to operate.

we have an opportunity in this country to have a read- energizing of america and create an enormous amount of opportunity, whether it is building the keystone pipeline, which would be day one. whether it is the creation of a new epa that will go about the process of appealing regulation on clean air. a whole host of regulations, repealing them or repealing and replacing them with regulations that are cost effective. these are the rational approaches we need to take to make sure we have affordable energy and we bring down the price of oil in this country, not just for our economy, but for our national security. the name of my economic plan is

the maid in the usa planned. the reason it is called that is because i take an emphasis on creating manufacturing jobs in america. we have a country that is uncompetitive with most of our trading partners. our biggest trading partners. the reason it is an competitive is not because of the cost of labor. if you look at the top nine trading partners, we are 20% more expensive to do business with. if we do not trade that cut -- change that, we are going to continue to lose manufacturing jobs in this country. we are going to have these products which have been engineered in america, manufactured somewhere else. people say, how are we going to get the economy going? certain parts of the economy are going well. not as well as they could.

the rest of the economy is lagging behind. unemployment among blue-collar people is three times what it is then college graduates. the innovation that is occurring at the top is not being made in america. people are not reaping the benefits of the transformation of innovation. we need to change that. the wall street journal described my plan as supply-side economics for theorking man. i do apply supply-side economic principles. create a plan field that can compete with china, that can compete with mexico, not on labor costs, but on other costs. if labor costs are the only death for -- differentiation, we will lose those jobs we will keep all the good paying jobs here in america.

there is no reasono move out of the country unless you what products delivered to the location. this is the best country in the world to export from. we could be the export market for the world again if we created an environment. one of the key parts is not just a tax policy, we allow things to be brought back to arica instead of paying a tax. there is no tax if they invest in equipment here in america. what is one of the key elements to keeping energy costs affordable? manufacturing is one of the highest users of energy. we need to have a competitive marketplace for power in this country. to allow the power to be moved and manufacturers to be able to get power and bulk quantities. we need to change the market. a lot of that is done by the

state. as the president, i would like to see more of a marketplace. we have that in pesylvania. the more we can see that happen to let the rest of the country, not only can we see rates go down -- happen throughout the rest of the country, not only can we see rates go down, we can build things necessary to build on our infrastructure. i thank you all very much. i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> we do have is moderator's. we would like to pose some questions to you first. i am the president of the color of the farm bureau -- colorado farm bureau, farmers are frustrated with the environment the protection agency.

we do want clean water and clean air. we are very concerned about having a balance between debt and a reasonable and agee policy. as well as balancing the regulatory burdens. had you see that being accomplished between those impacts and costs that come about? there have been conversations about reducing the budget, possibly even eliminating it. you sa you would like to reform the epa. hud the balae that as well as, -- how do you balance that, as well as, the epa is provided to protect air and water. >> thank you very much. to answer your first question, the real key in balance. i know people get very upset.

we belive everything in our lives. there is no absolute. you go into the grocery store, you are always balancing your checkbook with what your eyes want. even not go and do anything irrespective of the cost. there is not unlimited resources. the most important tng we need to do, which is what this administration has not done, which is to use them on the science, not politicized science -- which is to use sound science, not politicized silent. we saw it with global rming. an absolute travesty of a scientific researcher that was mutt -- of scientific research

that was motivated by politics. motivated by those who saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis the government to be able to step in and it greatly control your life. [applause] i never bought a hoax. -- the hoax. i understood there are hundreds of factors that impact the climate. it is the determining ingredient in the sauce that affects the entire global warming and cooling. it is absurd. and yet, we had politicians running to the ramparts. unfortunately, politicians who were running for president.

they bought into global warming. both congressman gingrich and governor romney supported the idea of man-made global warming and cap and trade. i never did. unless the science is better than what we have seen today, i will not. if you look at these things. i come from southwestern pennsylvania. i grew up in a small town. i remember the smells of the mills. i know the quality of life that can be affected by dirty ai i encourage you to go back 100 years and look of pictures of pittsburgh. you cannot see it. i am not exaggerated. you cannot see it. it is black. but the sky is dark all the

time. that is how that the smoke was. we know the dirty air. we know the problems. we also know that science can measure things in the parts per gazillion. the way the laws are written allows for the agency's botched they were written at a time when they did not have the school -- they were written at a time when they did not have these tools. it is the agency's discretion to use science to for the drive up costs based on laws -- to further drive up costs based on these laws. we need to reread those laws. the issue is not the epa. george bush but also epa was not like barack obama's epa. the question is, what happens

afterwards? the to and fro back and forth as a result of having different people that you regret legislations, to interpret regulations. -- people to rewrite regulations, to interpret regulations. we need to rewrite laws. abolishing the epa does not get rid of the laws that the epa has to enforce. someone else is going to enforce them. what makes you think that any other agency is going to do better? we need to agree with the idea that we need to reform in this area. that means we have to go and look at the laws. that is what i am going to be focused on. i am going to be focusedn cleaning up the epa and trying to change the idea of the tenor there. fundamentally, we have to change the underlying laws if we want to see this. that includes imposing things

like requiring real science in the coalition of cost-benefit with the government. >> thank you. [applause] >> senator. on behalf of colorado, i welcome you and thank you for your time. you mentioned the abundance of the domestic hydrocarbon resource and in your home state of pennsylvania we have seen the potential of increased nural gas resources, what they can do for economic development. you also discussed your support a free market. with that as a background, what they see as the proper role of government in getting the development of our energy in guiding the

development of our energy resources. what should the government do and what should it stay away from? >> i see this as consistent with the overall philosophy of dealing with a free marketplace. the government is there to create a plainfield -- playing field for businesses to thrive in a way that is a and creates opportunity for different categories of energy. i believe the government has gotten in the way in a lot of resource development. clearly, with offshore in deep water drilling. -- and a deepwater drilling. i have been an advocate of opening up those. fought to open up the alaska wildlife refuge. her of if we're going to keep a current will flow coming in the

years ahead, we have to have more will follow in the pipeline. -- will flow in the pipeline. the oil reserves are depleting. we are talking about a keystone pipeline, we may lose the alaska pipeline. there will be insufficient flows to keep the pipine going. just to keep existing, we need resources in placewe need to look for other opportunities. i am not an oil man from texas going out to sell and more to the public. i will tell the truth on everything. tell the truth about what is. how it can be safely explored and grilled. how that can be critical -- how that is critical to us. the same thing -- the same thing with federal land. we do not have a lot of federal land in florida.

i can tell you the problems i had with the federal government with timbering on the national forest. we have the most proper wrote -- profitable national forest in the country because we have black cherry, which is pretty valuable wood. we have the endangered species act, which has prevented us from timbering all sorts of anchorage there. it has been corrected school districts and the like because of the government's inability to allow us to care for our resources. a forest, in my opinion is like a garden. and you have got to care for it. if you leave it to nature, the nature will do what nature does, which is boom and bust. we were put on this earth as creatures of god to store the earth and wisely, but not for our benefit, but for the earth's

benefits. [applause] i consider that an article of faith. you may consider that an article of reason. if we cannot be good stewards of the environment, then we should not let the vagaries of nature destroy what we have helped create. i think it is important that we have a policy on federal lands. first, i would like to have a lotess federal land. i think that would be a great opportunity to reduce the budget deficit, for us to get rid o and turn over to the private sector a lot of federal lands i do not need to be in our inventory. [applause] and for the press, i'm not talking about yellowstone or the grand canyon. go out and look at a lot of federal lands that could be

suitable for pastor, could be suitable for oil and gas or other types of uses. they do not need to be in the federal inventory. and they are not necessarily profitable. and in the case that they are, they are not particularly well- managed. blm is understaffed and does not have the ability to provide adequately for the management of these plans. there are all sorts of opportunities for us. and again, i come at it from a bit different perspective. i come at it from the perspective of growing up in a little town in western of solving the pretty much do not make any money at it. i come at it from a common-sense way to make sure we are getting the best utilization of our land, and at the same time, keeping our precious land say from development. [applause] >> president obama has proposed raising sanctions on oil and gas

production on several occasions, citing the need to raise revenues to offset renewable tax credits or help reduce the defici critics of the president's plan, including the consumer energy alliance, argue that raising taxes would result in diminished -- reduced domestic production and higher prices at the pump. in one study, it has texas said itould increase government revenues. -- reduce government revenues. -- in one study has said that it would reduce government revenues. >> basically, all subsidies to energy should be eliminated. there are not a lot of them, to be honest. but for me, this is a market and we should not put any taxes, any federal taxes on the development of energy. engy is an important -- as you heard me talk about before, it is very important for the health of the economy. we should be encouraging the free market to develop energy,

whether nuclear energy, or whether it is wind or solar, coal or gas, oil, whatever i is -- ethanol. they should bdeveloped based on where the market can be driven. the federal government should be in a position to make a plain field -- a playing field level. i would not encourage any special fees or taxes put on energy production in this country. i think it would be counterproductive. [applause] >> thank you, senator. we do have microphones for the audience questions. right here in the blue shirt. let's start right there. >> hi, mr. santorum. my name is paul and i'm also from southwestern pennsylvania

i'm very fortunate to be a student here at the colorado school of mines. when i think about the future, i wonder what we can do to increase the number of elementary school students who are interested in math and science. >> that is a great question. here is the rare look at it. -- the way i look at it. one of the principal problems of education is that it is run by the federal govnment and the state government. [applause] i know we like to use the term "public schools" but they are not really public schools. they are government schools. [applause] and as a result, we have an education system that is not oriented on you. it is not oriented on the people who are response -- who are the

customers ofhe education system the customer of the education system, in my humble opinion, is the parent. why? because they are paying for the education of their children. they are the ones to pay the taxes. and whose responsibility is it to pay -- to take care of the children? the parents. they are the customer. they're the ones paying the government to do their job. but that is not how the education syst in this country functions. except in very rare occasions. some public schools, and charter schools, maybe they actually do try to create an environment. i believe you can get someone with their god-given talents that is probably oriented toward doing something like this. the way to do it is to make sure those god-given talents are identified encouraged from the earliest possible time. you not need government programs or grants.

it will need is to make sure that every child -- i mean, i can think of some myself, people that i knew as kids who i thought, wow, this kid is going to be a great engineer, this guy's going to be a great scieist, and he went off the track and never ended up as anything. why? for a variety of reasons. everything from personal problems to drug use to a bunch of other things. why do we have an environment where parents and children and administrators in schools, and particular, can get together and provide every child in america with a customid experience? it is not impossible. we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars. the one out of every three children in america will not graduate in high school. 1.2 million kids and you're

dropping out of school. if you drop out of school, yet a 75% chance of being in poverty in america. we say, we just accept that. we accept that those kids are dropping out of school. i guarantee you, there's a sufficient number -- i don't know whatercentage, but a significant number of those kids have the talent to be here, have the potential to be here. it is just that potential has not been realized. why? maybe a b family situation, maybe a personal problem, maybe school -- who knows? but we have not, as a society, made a commitment to you. we have made a commitment to the system. what good is that? if the system is not there for you, which is not. and we all know it, and yet we tolerate it and we continue to pump money into it as if doing that will change it.

parents of the united states of america, you need to stand up and say, enough. you need to demand that which is your right. [applause] and the first thing i wi do is fall on my sword and say i mad a mistake, which i did in voting for no child left behind. we will repeal that and everything else with respect to the government contributing and control of the secondary and primary education system in this country. the only exception to that would be to help schools and school districts that have a disproportionate number of special needs children, which are obviously going to be more expensive to care for. other than that, we will leave this not to the states. my objective will be not only to change things at the federal level, but to help you as parents organize an effort across this country to tell the states to stay out of the education system in this

country, but let parents and local communities design programs that can maximize ch child's ability, eh child ability to find their way. this hall will be filled because we will save more children, and as a result, more children will end up here. [applause] >> thank you, senator. to keep pace with where we are headed, one more question. i see a couple of hands right in front. >> senator, thank you. we heard from you and speaker gingrich on what you would do if you -- if elected. >> did you ask me what kind -- are you going to ask me what i will do if i lose? [laughter] >> no, if, god forbid, obama is reelected, what would a lame duck president do that most concerns you? >> if president obama were

elected, what would concern me? first off, he would implement obamacare, which in my opinion, will transform america into a second-rate country. why do i say that? because every single american will be dependent upon the federal government or for their basic health and wellness. -- a federal government for their basic of an alumnus. in every other country where that has happened, you create a dependent society and you give government control over ople's lives, it will make us a fundamentally different country than we are today. look at what has happened in the past week with the catholic church. when the government tells you that you hava right that they can give you, that they created a right for you, they can tell you how to exercise that right. because they now control you.

because you are now dependent upon them. the only place you can get this health insurance now, unless you are opting out of the system and you pay the fine and you self- insure, in other words, you insure yourself. they will tell you what that system is going to be and they will order your access to care. and you will be dependent upon them for them to read about to get what you need. and you will like it. the catholic church was just told that they have to provide things in the health care and pay for them that are strictly against the teachings of the church. what did the obama administration say? to bad. -- too bad. it is a right and you will do what we say.

not only that, when the bishop objected and wrote a letter, he was not allowed to write a letter. there was a military archbishop. he wrote a letter to be read by chaplains in the military. complaining about obamacare. and what it was imposing on the pack -- the catholic church. and the obama administration stop them from reading that letter in the church, and last week forced them to change the language in order for it to be read. careful what you wish for when you give the gernment power and authority over you. what am i worried about? i'm worried about more of that. i am worried about cap and trade coming back. the economy starts doing well, it is coming, rest assured. the only reason it did not pass is because we are in an economic downturn and they knew it would destroy the economy even more if we even talked about it. it will be back, as well