a process that was normal for most women. half of the births in half of the births in united states are unplanned. i want to discuss that issue with you. what is the cost of tuition at georgetown law school? >> we think it's $40,000 or more. it is $60,000 per year in loans or more for the cost of living and tuition. it is quite a bill. >> that is just for tuition and most of you are not paying that in cash. >> i am certainly not.

>> do you and most of your friends and colleagues and law school intended to practice law? >> we do, yes. it is quite an investment otherwise. >> in order to practice law or use law and other ways, would most young women of your age find it necessary to space your pregnancies? >> yes, of course. many women on our campus, the idea they should go without contraception during law school and risk pregnancy while they are in law school is yet another way of asking them to put their education second. i cannot imagine -- i know a few women who have been pregnant during law school but i cannot imagine how they do that. i think it is not a feasible

option either economically or in terms of their ability to balance everything. >> you believe the contraceptive is as necessary as any other health benefits provided by insurance companies? >> absolutely, and especially for young people, it is one of the most commonly used health care needs we have. one woman expressed that if her insurance did not cover this, what am i paying my insurance for? these are young women who were in good health otherwise. this is what they need. >> a young person does not go to the doctor very often. if you are a young woman, it probably has a lot to do with reproductive health. were you and the other students asking for any subsidy from the university for insurance?

with georgetown have itself have had to pay anything for the insurance that you saw to for the university? >> no, our student insurance is entirely not subsidized and that is true of most student insurance. with the new accommodation to these new adjustments to the regulation, even in situations of employers, they would not be contributing their money toward the contraceptive coverage. >> so, let me ask you what is the role of the university? they don't pay and a thing so what is the role of the university in this insurance that you are seeking? >> to restrict access to our health care needs. i can answer more completely if you like. they place the limits and

controls on what type of coverage with an access but they do not subsidize it. >> in your experience, our students to attend the university of many faiths or do they tend to be catholic students. >> there are students of many faiths and that is true of most chess with and catholic -- jesuit and catholic universities to provide a high- quality education and students want to go there for many reasons and i am proud to say that on our campus we have university-sponsored centers and student organizations that examine jewish law or groups for moslem students and students of all faiths. thankfully, although students are welcome but unfortunately, they are all affected by this lack of contraception coverage. >> ms. fluke, we learned also that the insurance companies who will be provided through the

affordable health care contraceptive coverage for women do not incur extra cost for this. you have not heard insurance companies pipe up and say what are you doing to us. it turns out that, according to the actuarial tables, it costs and insurance company more if it does not provide contraceptive coverage because of the cost of childbirth and the conditions of attending childbirth. this turns about not only to be a win-win but a win-win-win this will be a windfall for insurance companies. this will provide a contraceptive insurance and it is a winner in this country that we have this accommodation and if i might say so, as a person who teaches law at georgetown and i did not have anything to do with going to find you.

it is the good work of the committee that found do. i can say the georgetown to be very proud of you. you are illustrative of the very high quality of student the georgetown is able to attract and able to attract that quality because it welcomes students from many religions and your testimony here, it seems to me, has been evidence of a young lawyer who is ready to practice and ready right now to offer any testimony we might need at any time in the congress of united states. thank you for your testimony. >> thank you very much and i would add that there are many faculty members at georgetown who, like yourself, have been supportive of myself and the reproductive justice group and we thank them for their support. it is a frightening thing to speak against the university that provide your scholarships

and you are attending. their support has meant a lot to us. georgetown does have an excellent preparation especially for the public interest students and that is why i chose that university. i think that highlights that i should not have had to go without that in exchange for my health care. that should not have been a choice that i was faced with. >> thank you very much i will keep my questions brief. i wish to associate myself with the questions raised by my colleagues and their very valuable statements, especially in light of thanking you and in full appreciation for what you brought to the table today. clearly, a woman should always have a seat at the table. unquestionably when the subject is women's health. i was very moved by your statement and by the questions of our colleagues.

i was reminded of a statement of a wise and respected catholic leader in washington d.c. who once said about catholic education that we educate long people not because they are catholic but because we are catholic. it was an astounding statement. it flies in the face of what is going on here. the question of who is qualified to be a witness raises the question of who is qualified to have a hearing. does that person or chairman of committee have any judgment on what it means to a family to personally and religiously make decisions about the size and timing of their family? does that person having knowledge, are they qualified to

talk about the dangers to women's health and therefore the care of the family to a mom if she and her husband, their doctor, and their god cannot make those decisions? is that committee leadership of the congress qualified to make a decision about how people exercise their god-given free will to take their responsibility and to answer for how they exercise that god given free will? it sounds to me from their not wanting the public record of their hearing to show what this was all about, about women's health and how their decisions were impacted yet, how they are not wanting to hear about it, not wanting to hear about it when it comes to a woman's view on women's health and speaking for many women. i contend that the leadership of your committee, mr. collins, is not qualified to hold a hearing

on this subject because their judgment is very pour as to what their obligation was to the public in the public record on this subject. i would like to take sandra's testimony to the house so we can read it into the records of the full congress can be aware and not barred from hearing from what you so capably have presented to us. it is a lack of respect because when the president first put out his statement, there were those who said we want our religious institutions beyond the church and continues to be respected, the waiver for the church and places of worship. and then the president said and the administration said that did not extend to other

activities of the church and there was all the uproar. the president then, in an unprecedented way, moved quickly to remove all doubt about what the intentions. it was not about separation of church and state. was about women's health. what was interesting about the progression of events is that following that, some of the leaders of the religious community said that they don't want any insurance for any employer giving benefits to any employee to cover contraception. i think that really showed their hand. it was not about church and state, it was about an ideological point of view that flies in the face of the respect we need to have four women, the god-given freewill that we have to have responsibility for the role that women's health plays in the

lives of their families and of our country and the strength of women. i again thank you for your courage to come forward with such clarity about the subjects and i hope it is a source of satisfaction to you that so many people, hundreds of thousands of people, more than we have ever heard from in 48 hours come over 300,000 people saying there should not be a hearing without women's voices being heard. >> that demonstrates how many women and men care so deeply about this issue and how much it means to their lives. >> it doesn't speaks the fact that this is what the practice is in our country. if an overwhelming number of catholic women of child-bearing

age 14-50 or however old you want to go are practicing birth control, then there has to be some message to the church not to expect employers and insurance companies to enforce an attitude that you have that is not accepted by the laity churchgoing people themselves. we have a problem here which you have really clearly presented and answered to in the voice of a young woman in an institution of higher learning that is catholic. i've always thought c capital a smallc, let's hope that is the case. i thank you and i invite you and my colleagues to say any

closing statement they may wish to have four questions. >> thank you very much. i will be very brief. as i said in a hearing the other day, i ask myself a simple question -- if this were a hearing on prostate cancer and there was a lineup of women and no man, i guarantee you men would not have stuck around. they would have said to themselves, give me a break. i just thank you for what you have done. one of the things i have often said is out of our pain comes our passion. clearly, you have felt the pain. you have seen. you have empathized with it and

tried to make sure that you change things. i think there is a story here, a big story. out of your desire and your classmates desires, as students, to make a difference, now you have not only the congress listening to you but you have the country listening to you. that is a powerful, powerful thing. i want to encourage you to do what you do. we will work with you all and try to make sure that women have access to contraceptives and make sure that they have what they need to live the very, very best lives they can.

i thank you madame leader for holding this hearing. >> thank you, congresswoman carolyn maloney? >> i would like to add what is wrong with this picture. a woman should have been at that table, and all of the tables in the country. thank you for your courage, for speaking out, and for your testimony today. >> thank you. congresswoman eleanor holmes norton? >> if we had gone to central casting this morning to find a representative we could not have done better than you today. you have performed another service that is an unintended consequence of this hearing. for the first time, those who have paid attention to this issue now know that the affordable health care act now covers contraceptives, so women

no longer have to pay extra for pills, devices, or other means of contraception. thank you for helping us get back out there. >> thank you. >> thank you. i believe the visibility -- we almost got to thank the chairman for the lack of judgment that he had to create the awareness. it has been hard to convince people that the fight has been about contraception. we have tried to tell people for 25 years that it is about contraception, and they say it cannot be. yes, it is. it is not a subject that we like to talk about in public -- personal, private matters, but apparently it is necessary because people who called this

hearing do not seem to know what we know about women's health. thank you for your extraordinary leadership, your excellent statement, and with that commitment, we will take your words to the floor of the house if the conceived, to use the word, piece of legislation reaches the house of the floor. please take the last word, sandra. >> thank you, madame speaker, and to all of you for supporting women in this time of need. i appreciate accolades for me as a spokeswoman, but i would encourage all members of congress and the public to go online. women have begun posting videos of what they would say had they

been asked to testify, posting videos on how this effects their lives. i hope everyone would have a chance to hear from all of the women of america that are concerned about this issue. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> live coverage of the national governors association meeting will continue shortly. the afternoon session will focus on the role of the

national guard coming up in about 10 minutes here on c-span. later on this afternoon, we will continue our coverage of republican presidential candidates at 4:00 p.m. ron paul will speak to small- business owners on jobs and the economy. and at 6:00 p.m., newt gingrich will speak on god and country coming from georgia. these live events coming your way this afternoon on c-span. president obama this week said the u.s. will continue to pressure the syrian government to stop killing civilians. his comments were after a meeting with the prime minister of denmark. we will show you as much as we can until they live coverage of the national governors association continues. >> this is the first time we have had a chance to meet.

obviously, we have been very impressed with the first five months of her prime ministership. i shared with her how much michele and i appreciated the hospitality that was shown to us when we visit to copenhagen in the past. i also wanted to say how much we appreciate the great alliance and a partnership we have with the danish people on a whole range of international issues. obviously most recently, the operations in libya could not have been more -- as affective as it had not been for the precision and excellence of the danish armed forces and their pilots. that is typical of the way danes have punched above their weight in economic affairs. in afghanistan i think the prime minister for the extraordinary support of the danish troops.

they have taken significant casualties for which obviously all of us extend our condolences to the families that have been affected. but because of the outstanding work that has been done by danish soldiers, we are seeing improvements in the areas they operate. as we were exchanging notes, it turns out that everybody in denmark wants to talk about the economy all the time. jobs, growth -- we agreed there has been some progress in resolving the sovereign debt issues. there has been some progress with respect to the agreements between the imf and greece. the new government in italy, spain, and portugal are all

making significant progress. there is a lot more work to do. we will be consulting closely with denmark. we exchanged ideas on how we can assure not only economic stability in europe but also growth in europe. if europe is growing, then that benefits the u.s. economy as well. we emphasized if there were additional ways we could encourage trade and reduce economic frictions -- reduce economic fractions between the two in a relationship. we talked about the transition that was already agreed to in lisbon on the when it comes to putting afghans in the lead in security over the next several years. we are going to be consulting closely with not only denmark but other allies in making sure that is a smooth transition and

one that is sustainable. we continue the help -- we continue to help the afghan government to support its own sovereignty and to effectively control exporters. we also discussed the extraordinary counter-terrorism cooperation that has taken place between our two countries. i thanked the prime minister for the excellent work her intelligence team has done. we are in constant communication on a whole host of issues. they are one of the leaders when it comes to counter terrorism and are familiar with the significant threats that are posed by terrorism. we appreciate that very much. we had a chance to talk about a

wide range of international issues including the situation and syria. i have to say that all of us who have been seen the terrible pictures coming out of syria and homes recently, we recognize it is absolutely imperative for the international community to rally and send a clear message to president assad it is time for a transition and for that regime to move on. it is time to stop the killing of syrian citizens by their own government. i am encouraged by the international unity that we're developing. the meeting that took place indonesia. -- the meeting that took place and tunisia. we will look for every measure possible to prevent the slaughter of individuals and syria. this is an area that the prime minister and i deeply agreed. it is important we do not be bystanders during these extraordinary events. at the same time there are other threats in the region including the situation and

iran. i think them for their leadership providing the toughest sanctions to have never seen coming out of the eu. we both agree we are making progress and it is working sending a message to iran that it needs to take a different path of the ones to rejoin the international community. there is an expectation on behalf of the world that they abide by their international obligations when it comes to their nuclear program. the final thing we talked about was we both had two daughters. we traded notes. the prime minister's daughters are slightly older. she assures me that they continue to behave themselves, well into their teenage years. i am encouraged by the report. i thank you very much. i hope you have a wonderful state what you are here. we look forward to working with you again in the near future. >> thank you mr. president. thank you for the kind words.

the danish people have a strong sense of closeness to the united states. we always have had that sense. we have had political and economic ties with each other. we have exchanged ideas, culture. most important of all, we share common values. in a turbulent time, this is very important. the friendship alliance between our two countries is in very good shape right now. i thank you you for that. we talk about the debt situation most of the time in europe. i conveyed a message to the president. i am convinced that we will see ourselves through this crisis. we have put some important measures in place. we have reforms.

we have a focus on jobs and growth right now. i think a closer transatlantic relationship would be important. we are dependent on each other. we should have closer trade with each other. i think that will be part of creating sustainable growth in our countries. as you were saying, we also have close ties in terms of security. it is clear -- has been for a long time that danish soldiers -- >> we will do this to go live to the afternoon session and the national governors association, the topic is the national guard. >> many of the committee hearings are going on simultaneously. the governors are rallying in joining us here. seated to my right is the

director of the national governors association special committee on homeland security and public safety. see heather if you need copies or materials. these meetings are open to the press and all attending. i want to thank all of the national guard generals for being here. i have never felt as well protected as ibm in this hearing including my own general, and jim adkins. -- have never felt as well protected as i am. we have heard all about proposed a force reductions and there is a letter circulating to secretary panetta. so far, from 35 or 40 of us, expressing real concerns about making sure that our guard is properly resource. so often equipment goes overseas and never comes back.

men and women of the national guard has always played a pivotal role in defending their homeland from attack while protecting our national interests. since 9/11, the guard has seen its role expanded as a desisted other armored its personnel. this past year, there were two very important and long-overdue steps taken to finally recognize the importance of the contributions of the national guard. first, through the work of the council of governors, and in the governor from the great state of washington has led, and there has been a historic agreement regarding the coordination of state and military forces during military response. this was enacted in december when the president signed the national defense authorization act. now, when disaster strikes in a hurricane, earthquake, whenever it might be, a governor has the

ability to point to a member of the national guard to direct all military forces operating within the borders of his or her state. this remarkable accomplishment represents months of negotiations to remedy issues that have been challenging and concerning a sublicense the failures in the response to hurricane katrina, namely the need for governors to be able to work together with their national guard, best equipped to work in their communities. thanks to the key of specials, -- thanks to key people, we are able. gov. sandoval from nevada adn governor mcdonnell from virginia. there's a long overdue representation of the national guard on the joint chiefs of

staff. for the first time ever, the open -- general mckinley is able to directly report to the president providing him advice and counsel on matters involving states, there guard units, and bringing home the letter that 40 or 50 bus will sign before the weekend is over. these are two important accomplishments and heather will talk about another one, the issue that we now have dedicated bands so they can achieve interoperable communications. we're joined by governor jay nixon who stood up when the tornado tore up joplin. i turn it over to my co-chair for his opening remarks.

>> thank you, governor o'malley. i appreciate your leadership very much. let me thank all of the generals that are here today. i share his confidence that we are well protected here today and this is an impressive group. i wish we did a photograph of all of these generals. let me also recognize gov. gregoire, sandoval, all of you. let me recognize the general from wyoming here with us today. we had a busy year last year with flooding and other issues and it's a pleasure to have him here. governor o'malley, we have the former governor of wyoming also here with us today. thank you for being here with us today. he was in office two governor's

ago and did a great job for the state of wyoming. as you know, the national governors represents governors all over the country and, not surprisingly, we do not agree on every issue. i do not think i am letting a secret out of the bag, but that's just the way it is. when it comes to the governors and the generals, we can find common ground very quickly. thank you, governor o'malley. i appreciate your leadership. i appreciate your work on this special committee. we have accomplished much together. i look forward to today's special session as we focus on the expanding role of the national guard. the soldiers of our national guard serve a dual mission and the service to their state and country. last year, my home state of

wyoming, we had a record amount of moisture and we were tracking this and we knew that the floods were coming. i took a novel approach and i called on the garden before the flood waters hit. when you do that, there's always the risk, and i recognized it, as soon as my phone started ringing when people asked me when i was doing. i issued a declaration of disaster early on and a ploy to under 22 guardsmen across the state to assist local communities and citizens in need. the guard worked hard through the disaster and thanks to their efforts, and to the efforts of many others, we were able to mitigate the damage in a big way. the guard gave critical support during last year's flooding and at the same time, more than 150 guard personnel have been deployed serving in iraq,

afghanistan, a close vote, and guantanamo bay. -- kosovo and guantanamo bay. i was proud to visit their troops in guantanamo bay. i tend their homecomings to recognize what they mean to the state of wyoming and our country. the fact is under the national guard members continue to serve alongside active duty soldiers. and at the same time, as my example about the flooding in wyoming illustrates committees brave men and women responding to ideas and emergencies and also protecting us from threats and attacks. this dual mission, serving both governors and the federal government shows the increasing importance of today's national guard. it was a remarkable thing to me last year, after the flooding hit, how many people from around the state express their

heartfelt appreciation for the guard in ways that i cannot adequately give it credit to buy my articulation. it was simple things like, " please thank them. they saved my home. they saved my business. they saved my entire town." we had these wonderful stories of grandmothers and grandfathers going out and making sure that the guard had an opportunity to eat chocolate chip cookies. i say this because it illustrates the unique nature of what the relationship the guard has with the states. it is important. in recent weeks, we have seen how our department fence as outlined a new strategy proposing steep reductions to the structure especially to the air national guard. with the national guard being the only military force that governors can call upon, such

cuts could curtail state capabilities to respond to act of terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies. we are often told that the next big disaster is not a question of if but when. we may have no notice, no advance warning of the next tornado or the next earthquake. as governors, it is our responsibility to respond and provide to the safety and security of our citizens. the national guard is one of the most effective, and cost- effective, that we can utilize in a time to crisis with a fully equipped and properly trained force so we are better able to protect the public, respond to emergencies, and return to our normal routines. no country has ever been better served by a military than america. we thank of the guard, all

service members for what they do. the guard is strong and capable, and they must remain so. i look forward to hearing from both of our panelists today, and i am particularly interested in hearing more about how the guard continues to change and how we can best maintain the guard's military response capability to serve our citizens. governor o'malley. >> thank you. let me exercise some prerogatives with you. gov. gregoire, if anything to mad with opening thoughts from the council of governors? -- anything to add? >> it really is a time to celebrate. it took us a long time to create a council of governors after federalizing our national guard legislation to do that. we went to the table, i will have to say, in record time for

a real partnership with the departments of defense and we were able to achieve what i think is right for the country and right for the guard. i have tremendous respect of the capability in the guard in every one of our states. if you and others here were helpful in making that happen. if i can add, i am very pleased we have a member of the guard on the joint chiefs of staff finally. it has truly been a year of success, but we have our work cut out for us even more. >> governor granstad? >> i am honored to be a part of the group of governors that has had a chance to play a role here in this very important will force mission.

the comments have already been made about the importance of the national guard to our states and especially important for the air national guard. i'm pleased to see the governors and generals coming together with a statement about how critically important is that we not diminish the very important role that the air national guard plays, not just as part of the national defence, but the mission they play in the state level as well. we thank you for that. i'm pleased to be here to sit in on the committee. >> thank you. we are also joined by governor bentley and gov. abercrombie. let me introduce you to the chief of the national guard bureau. in his role as a member of the joint chiefs of staff coming serves as a military advisor to the president and secretary of

defense. he provides direct communications with the department of defense, governors, and there are generals assembled here. he first received his commission and in 1974 upon graduating from the reserve officer training program at southern methodist university. a combat pilot, he served as the assistant deputy chief of staff for programs in washington and director of the mobilization and reserve affairs at the u.s.- european command in to to guard, germany. general mcanally serve as the director -- in stuttgart, germany. is joined byey the director of the air national guard. on behalf of my colleagues, thank you for doing this and we are interested in hearing from you. [applause] >> thank you.

>> excuse me, general. that is what the script says. >> it is my pleasure to introduce crag few gate -- craig fugate, fema. he has worked with alachua county fire rescue. he has served in several key positions in the state of florida. he was appointed bureau chief for the florida department of emergency management in 1997. in 2001, he was appointed director for fema with each of the state's 67 counties and

local governments. on 2009, he was appointed by president obama and confirmed by the senate to serve as the administrator. he has the strength of someone who has been there and done that. we welcome you both. we will open with you, general. >> thank you, governors mead and o'malley. i saw a lot of you on television today on the sunday rounds. it is great for the winter meeting for the generals with you today to be here. they start their conference today and it will run through wednesday. it is great to be here. i'm very grateful, governor mead and governor o'malley, to be here today. i am a florida guardsmen. this guy believes orange and blue for the florida gators. -- this guy bleeds orange and blue. it's great to be here.

i would like to begin by thanking the members of this committee and all the governors for their advocacy and support over the years. we talked about the representation in the room today, the leadership of the national guard, all 54 generals or their designated representatives are here. general why it coming and groom, and i can get the support -- gen. wyatt, ingram, and i can get your support here in washington. i've had the distinct pleasure of travelling with all of you, most recently with mr. nixon, to iraq. i hope more governors can visit their soldiers in theater. it is a historic time for the national guard, and many of the former chiefs have said that. i'm the 26th. during our watched from the attack on 9/11, and the

subsequent wars, thrust the national guard to the front line of our nation's defense. over 667,000 guardsmen have been deployed in support of operation enduring freedom, iraqi freedom, and a new dawn. in 2005, the army national guard accounted for 51% of the total ground combat force in iraq. the other officers will tell you that this is the component that protect the skies over the united states of america and we have also been flying in record numbers, all as a volunteer. we are grateful for the chairman and soldiers in your national guard. we now have the most experienced, battle tested guardsmen in the history of our nation. although the united states military has ended their mission in iraq and is transitioning its mission in afghanistan, the

national guard is not anticipating a reduced role in our nation's defense. we face threats from at home and abroad, and physical challenges that call for continued and perhaps even greater reliance on the guard. the global security environment has grown far more complex. me continue to face asymmetric and complicated threats. although the size of our overall military forces will decrease, we need to remain capable in carrying out air missions and be fully prepared to defeat unforeseen aggression as it occurs. this is one of the stated principles of the new strategic guidance laid out by president obama last month. i believe this strategy positions the departments of defense in the right place and i think president obama and secretary panetta for their leadership and guidance in this area. i would also like to thank the president in the leadership in standing up to the council of

governors. the council has played an invaluable role in strengthening the relationship between federal and state government in matters relating to homeland security. we will meet tomorrow afternoon in the pentagon with secretary panetta, secretary napolitano, and other key figures. i cannot think governor gregoire or branstand enough. these will remain a priority for the departments of defense in the months and years to come. the enemies of openly declared their seeking weapons of mass destruction and it is vital we must continue to increase our response capabilities to ensure a quick and effective response, god forbid it never occurs. the key to combating of weapons of mass destruction on our homeland is preparation and early planning with you, our state partners. the same holds true for responding to national

disasters, many of you found yourself dealing with last year. we encountered 14 national disasters last year that caused that least $1 billion each in damage. that's very significant. it was a tumultuous year, as many of you know. we saw a wild fires, a blizzard, flooding, and tornadoes. based on recent weather patterns, we should expect as many severe weather events this year. complex task appears are something we all need to pay serious attention to. -- complex weather events are something we need to pay attention to. we recently traveled to texas and it discussed border issues. it is becoming likely that more responses will include national guard members from multiple

states. when hurricane irene wreaked havoc on the east coast last year, guardsmen from 27 states responded. this multi-state response has highlighted in an area where members of the national governors association, working with your state legislature, can help make a difference for your national guard men and women. this is the state active duty paid allowances. many of our states have standards that mirror federal paid legal protections, but many did not. the differences have been highlighted during a multistate emergency action compaq response when guard members working side by side in state status and performing the same workout not only different pay but different level of protection, should they become injured. i encourage governors to work with one another and with your legislatures to find a way to greater parity with respect to these issues. the national guard of the future will be killion gauged in many

of the emerging mission areas identified in the new strategic military guidance. these include special operations, regular warfare, operating effectively in cyberspace, and conducting counterinsurgency operations. we will also maintain unmanned aerial systems, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance programs. we have very effective state partnership programs and we look forward taking on these missions to do our part to meet the evolving challenges of the global security environment. as the national guard evolves, it's imperative that we do so with input from all the governors. so much of what the guard does revolves around partnerships and are partnerships with you and the commanders in chief of our states and territories, are some of the most vital we have. the national guard bureau will soon establish a working group to establish what the guard should and could look like in

the future. i will make sure this is done with your input and transparency. but to work together to figure out how the national guard of the future will look and respond. your national guard stands ready to serve you. we're partners with a common mission. for 375 years, the national guard mission has been to protect our communities, the people, it and the property in them. the national guard and the national governors association has a great history of working together to accomplish that mission. let's keep it up. i'd like to thank you with your worked on an issue that affects us all, the return of our members. there are high numbers of returning service members with reintegration, post-traumatic stress, and on employment issues. many of you have taken steps to address these issues in your states and i would like to thank

you for all you have done and continue to do on behalf of our returning service members. they have been fighting our battles for us and we cannot leave them to fight the battle on their own. again, thank you for your advocacy and continued support. point of privilege, if i could it? one of our generals has announced his retirement and he has been a stalwart supporter of not like this committee but for all of us. can you stand, jim? i would like for you to be recognized. we will be losing a great agent. [applause] with that, mr. chairman, i look forward to your questions after mr. fugate will give his remarks. > let me introduce feame

administrator, craig fugate. the one thing all of us agreed about is the responsiveness of fema, the forward-leaning thinking, and positive changes we have all seen and we thank you for the improvement to have made their. so rarely do public employees recognize for the good things that they do, but i can tell you these governors are very thankful for the committed, fast, professional work of your new fema. >> it's always great when we say yes, but even when we say no, we appreciate the partnership we have with states. fema has an interesting role. we are not a very big agency. contrary to what i run into in the national media, and somehow thinks our small agency as all

of these resources that we bring to bear. bad when i come here and unfortunately i now most of you -- i now know most of you on a first name basis. what struck me was no matter where i went come in a matter what the disaster was, the guard was there. that is a prepared statement. it was not about the budgets. it was not about a lot of things that people thought were going to be detrimental to the response. the simple fact was wherever i went, the guard was there. these are citizen soldiers. i do not think people get it. they do not sit in the armory waiting for a disaster, but they have jobs, in school, they have professions. they serve their country and their states. in many times, to the detriment and a consequence of their own

personal lives. i have never heard from any guardsman, no matter what their rank, stature, no matter what their mission, that they were not like to be helping their neighbors. one of the most important functions was the opportunity to serve their neighbors when needed. as i look at that, i am reminded that we have a duty in my level, as general mckinley points out, the talk about things we need to address to make sure that the citizen soldiers have the tools they need when they do come in to help their neighbors. in our job, we coordinate on behalf of your requests will the president declares a disaster under the stafford act, the resources of the federal government. we have always have challenges in trying to speed the process up and work closer and faster with your teams. i'm hoping what governor o'malley has said is something that we are actually doing.

we have a lot of work to do to get to where i want to become but i look at disasters not at the process but the outcomes that need to occur. i'm focused on how we can get faster and what the best resources are, and not necessarily looking at how we did it before. in many cases, i continue to marvel at the fact that throughout all of the deployments, all of the collops, no matter when the disaster occurs, those that we saw coming in with the flood, when you were pro-active in getting that out early, those we may have known when we had a risk of severe weather, we had no idea where looking at one of the worst tornado outbreaks ever occurred in your state, gov. bentley. entire communities destroyed across northern alabama. the images that came out of joplin and people were wondering how it could happen. it just proved that nature is very powerful and that we have to be prepared for those things

that can occur. as i sit here today, i know we have a lot of things to discuss, and i just want to emphasize that i think the governors in this country have been able to work effectively with the administration and the department of defense to accomplish a milestone that in the history of the formation of the guard, going backin floridat out that the first militia mustard in this country was in st. augustine, 375 years ago. the first response to the hurricane was the militia dealing with a french invasion of a hurricane, when it struck. i continue to look at its, how do we take that history and not repeat previous detrimental action occurred? we have seen the rise and fall

of the department of defense, funding, and it always seems that the guard is the afterthought in the process. within a recent decade, would then -- without regard, we would not have been able to defend ourselves. as we look at these strategies, we must capitalize on the fact of not dealing with who is in charge in a disaster, but the unity of command. that we no longer have to drive past armories full of equipment and ask what those folks are not being helped, and we explained that we did not have the authority to request help from the reserves. we no longer face the issue of what role the card has in representation on the chiefs of staff. the question remains, how do we make sure that the guard will be there when you need them, when the next disaster strikes? balance that across all of the

competition at the federal level as we deal with the budget challenges that you have been facing for years. how to get the job done with the resources that we have. our approach to this is that it takes a total effort. previously we only had a total effort when we went to war. now we can build on the same building blocks, the total support of all capabilities to support you when disaster strikes. not stopping at the guard or the active-duty reservists. how do we continue to build upon that and recognize that by funding at the guard level, we benefit the mission. the mission to support citizens in the time of need and contribute to this nation's defense. that is the lesson learned. we have to go back and asked why many jobs have cost us world decisions in the long run for short-term gains and savings.

the guard is a long-term player in this country's defense. there are roles that we need to be engaged in. the guard also needs to be your tool to respond to disasters ready to go. with that, governor, i turn it back to you. >> thank you. [applause] >> we are also joined by governor jan brewer, from arizona, the co-chair of this committee. she did a lot of good work here. opening it up for questions. the governor of hawaii. >> thank you very much. aloha, wonderful to see you, general. part of your statement was that we needed to -- your phrase was should -- what the national got

-- national guard should look like in the future. administrator, you indicated that somehow, pulling out that word, that the funding fell short, that the guard would come up short on the funding. at the risk of those of you who know me well on that committee of repeating myself, i have discovered that it is obvious that it has to be repeated over and over, because it tends to be taken for granted first. in this instance, the national guard fits that description to well. we had to struggle to get the fourth star there. we had to struggle in the armed services committee again and again to get the question before us of what it means now and in

the future for the national guard when it becomes an operational force. this is not a partisan situation. this goes back in the media history to the clinton administration, and even the first bush administration, with regard to whether it was iraq, kosovo, or the whole panoply of deployments. this discussion never took place in the general public as to the transition of the national guard and being, by default, and operational force. some of us in the congress at that time said that we had a new draft, by default, and that what we were doing was drafting the national guard across the country. i make those editorial

preambles because we are still not dealing with it now. except the same sequence is taking place. this new budget that we have to deal with today, there is a letter coming forward that has been mentioned, and i assume it will be signed by every governor it has not been already, we need to take this up with the secretary of defense my point is this. whether it is current funding with regard to the international guard in this instance, or whether it is dealing with the after effects of multiple deployments, and the effect of the veterans a ministration, we

have not come to grips, the congress has not come to grips with the question of the by default operational nature of the deployments is funding question before us is indicative of something that is going to happen over and over again until we come to a conclusion with regard to how the guard is going to be treated by the congress and the pentagon budgets as they come forward. we cannot continue to be in a position in which we are constantly having as governors to come to the congress of the united states and ask them to tell us what they're doing. i would ask that before we leave here, that we try to take that question up in future.

we are on target for the immediate questions that have to be faced, but the governor's council, i think, i would suggest they take up the question of just what is going to be expectation of the national guard's across the nation with regards to national defense and the integration of general mckinley and his successors and the joint chief. if we do not come to grips with that question, we will face situations as this today in one form or another, over and over. >> response? >> first of all, governor abercrombie and i have had important discussions in his former role as a member of congress. after conflicts have subsided,

we're wishful that they will. the national guard has ended up somewhere on the short end of the stick. those last 10 years, i will let bill ingram speak in a minute, but the united states army has equipped the army national guard at historic rates. most of you can back this up. the equipment on hand for the response here at home is in the mid to upper 90% range. this is where the governor and i have had substantive discussions, recapitalizing the air force, creating a situation where the entire air force is short of equipment. it is a national issue where our

air force is the smallest it has ever been in history and is in need of the equipment on the books but has not been able to be produced in quantities that allow the national guard to participate. governor, i do believe that a look, with governors informing members of congress and the department of defense to look at what the requirements are that the governors will need from their guard, we picked a date called 2020 because that was what the president said would be a military for four to 20. at times we are still living with a national guard that is in the 20th century. i commend the question and your leadership for putting those issues in front of us. i would make sure that we have the right people on it. >> the letter being circulated,

the error occurred -- air guard provides 35% of the capability for 6% of the budget. we must approve the proposal of the aircraft budget deductions at six times the per capita personnel reductions. this letter is being signed on to in a very bipartisan way here. 35 signatures and counting. perhaps we will get an update. >> first, let me say thank you, general, for giving a shout out to one of the finest tags in the history of the united states. he has been pivotal with the council governor's with regard, frankly, to your presence on the joint chiefs of staff. thank you for your leadership and for all of the tags present.

thank you for all of your leadership at home and here. administrator, i have to tell you, it is an amazing partnership that we have formed. we came close to a real disaster here, recently, and you were there and present at the emergency operation. it was an example of how we get together immediately. i want to thank you for your role and the leadership that you play. i do not want to put all -- any of you in an uncomfortable position, but the letter that the chair has just acknowledged, i would like if you could describe for all of us the practical impact of that level of cuts.

>> i may offend more people on this one. here is the bottom line. it is not just the air guard, it is army aviation as well. when we look at disasters, speeds are critical. i will give you one example where we think that i have looked at the entire department of defense, not just a guard. it became readily apparent that one of our concerns would be isolated areas due to failures of infrastructure. we have faced similar threats in hazard basis. traditionally, we have been looking at limited capability takeoff and the ability to fly

by an average conditions. you are able to call of those resources or get them rapidly moved. if that capability is not there, we will turn to active duty reserve units. we will still be able to mobilize a response. but will we have speed and capacity currently present in the guard? my concern is that this is one area where there is not a lot of capability outside to go after. people suggested commercial helicopter contracts. we have looked at those. the bottom line has always been the guard's ability for fixed- wing support to move people in the resource areas that are cut off with neighboring states and across the country, as well as what is in the active reserves.

that will slow down that response and increase the number of units that will have to be activated to support the response as well. >> may i suggest, there may be other people listening here to the council of governors, but they are a group that was appointed for the first time, really, a few years ago. we are having our meeting tomorrow with the council of governors. president obama is the first president in the history of the united states to create such a forum. so that they could be there to address these issues. i would ask if that could be -- it probably is the best forum for us to address this and work it out. many of us would have to agree that a lot of the cuts are coming, the things that people

are preparing for in this request, a lot of that will play out in congress. people will have to decide what is more important. airplanes for the national guard or tax cuts for millionaires. i vote for airplanes. governor, is this on the agenda to talk about on monday? >> it is. there is practical information that can be articulated at that meeting. general, can you address this? >> it is a difficult question. it is not arbitrary, cuts have had to have been made. the former chairman said that our greatest national security challenges, they are in the deficit and the budget. in the budget control act this past summer, the rest to come up with $487 billion over 10 years. we went back in with our services and redid our budget

submissions after that directive to us. the air force had to make some very tough choices. every time that you make a tough choice and sacrifice capability, it increases your risk. all of the service teams told president obama that we could manage the risk. i have always been a voice for expressing the risk but you think of as governors. there was not a command that articulated the requirements for the governor's need in times of disaster. the reason to combat command to translate that request into some kind of purchase of an item to equip the national guard to be able to perform, we have to turn to the analysis that the service does to make sure that the army and air force, which budgets 98%

of our budget, takes into account, if they look at it in a large budget like we have in the department of defense. that being said, i am an advocate, as a first military responder, to support local fire and local police, who will be the first ones on scene to handle these emergencies. those are types of things that we can substantively asked the department for, asking them to build in the requirements for domestic operation into the budget to resources the national guard. >> i am wondering if this

committee should take up this invitation for us to define our needs through the guard as we look to 2020 and the role of the guard. i think it might be appropriate for us to put out our own report and our need as commander-in- chief of our respective states. >> a good idea. governor mcdonald? >> first of all, it is terrific that the guard has been afforded a seat at the table and now report directly to the president, so that we have a direct voice in the chain of command. i think you will be a great representative for us. so many of the assets of our nation are in the guard.

i had a question for the administrator. first of all, we all had a rash of national disasters last year. in virginia we call it our month of earth, wind, and fire. i want to commend fema. you were outstanding. your communications with the people on the ground, before and after, really was outstanding. in the response of begot afterwards, the public assistance decisions were prompt and great for damage done to public buildings and expenses incurred by municipalities.

the challenge that we had with the tremendous devastation in the states, in virginia we were more on the bubble according to the rules of fema. i know that there is only so much resource to go around and so much to you can do, but i am wondering, is that solely driven by money? can you perhaps look again at those categories in terms of when it is appropriate to determine the the state has its own capacity to handle the impact of a disaster or when it would be appropriate to weigh in? >> certainly it was great in our state, but we were denied a couple. i wonder if it is time to take a look to see if there is something more the can be done

for those individual systems. we have had to raise a lot of private money and people have done that well, but i wonder if there might be a capability to look at those. >> governor, every case is unique. part of my job is to say that it did not meet the threshold when we make those recommendations to the president. when it is individuals at the other end, i do not take that lightly -- lightly. we look at trauma, loss of life, and overall impact. we will look at all factors, but it is based upon the state itself, not the neighboring states, and there declarative status. i know that at the other end

there is a shriver who need insurance and without this program, there will probably have a much more difficult time recovering. when we make as the niles, it is not because it is an easy decision. >> governor nixon? >> thank you. i appreciate your service to the country and my state and other relationships over the years. two areas that are worth looking at, when we look forward, we see the corps as not only having challenges in the rivers and what not where the decisions are made, but also the lebron network's and decisions that are

made about not only the management of rivers in the middle of the country, but the levies. i would ask, now that you have the extra star, that you press how important it is. you and i have worked together on a number of construction projects, and it is going to require confidence and significant attention by both of you all to make sure that that is as and mashed as it is in the reconstruction and flood management on internal waterways. the second piece, as you are -- whenever there is a day with good weather and you have extra time, looking at the formulas for mitigation dollars, those

dollars are there appropriately for things like sirens to warn people for upcoming hurricanes and safe rooms, communities and what not. looking at how we could give more flexibility in that area when some areas have multiple natural disasters, looking for ways -- i would be interested in your comments as to whether or not you felt constricted by that and if you felt there were ways that we could be helpful, as governors, to sprint -- spend that in a broader level. you talk about giving assets to places. there are a lot of things that we could do if those guidelines were more broad. >> to be frank, the more brought the guidelines, the more they ask why we are funding it. the challenge is to make sure that we are accountable and these dollars are used to reduce

risk from future disasters. as long as we can maintain and show that that is what we are doing. if i am in favor of it. are we looking up flexibility in these grants? for finding ways to fund things differently? i have to be careful not to cross over and be too broad for research and you would see as not being the primary purpose. one of the areas i wanted to put war premium on was safety. the often looked at the structural mitigation and i wanted to make sure that we were not missing out on life safety as well. we will continue to work, but again, there is a line at which we began to cross and we began

losing visibility as mitigation. some concerns may be that the flexibility is beyond what was will be refunded for. >> governor of iowa. >> i want to appreciate how much the national guard has always responded whenever we have a disaster. i had the honor of serving as governor for a long time before and they never disappointed me. when i found out about the council of governors, i was pleased and honored to be a part of it. the elevation of the national guard is extremely important. there is a decision amongst us that the procedures were not followed to consult with the governor.

we hope to it -- to be able to speak strongly on this in general. i think that we are fortunate that we have this new council of governors with a voice and that we have you at this position. i do also want to say to the administrator how much we appreciate those of you on the missouri river who went along with that long, drawn-out flooding experience last summer. fema was very responsive and, i in the end, i feel that you made very good decisions and we were appreciative of the responsiveness and help the received. i wanted to express my sincere appreciation on the part of the people. we were not as happy with the corps of engineers, but we think

that that is getting better. >> one of the issues that we were all glad to see resolved was the issue of the 700 mhz and radio band for first responders so that we could, 10 years after 9/11, moved forward with some assurance that the band with would be there for interoperable communications. to what degree, if you know, will fema and homeland security be involved in the distribution of $700 billion when some of those bands are auctioned off? what we need to be doing to make sure that they go to improve first responder communications in the states? >> there are a lot of moving pieces in getting this

invitation. the one thing that i would say right now is more important to get ready is your state emergency communication plans. working with states where you are updating communication plans. that has been driving your investment strategies already. it will be that mechanism that we will want to build upon as 700 mhz becomes available and you start making decisions about how to build out that capability. i would start if your -- by seeing if your state committee has the right local officials and how that is working. and are they looking at what the next steps would be as they get access to complement the bill and broadband systems. >> if we were a state that had not made a lot of progress on this because some states decided it was not a priority, that

would be the time to get people around the table to make sure that we have a plan to apply for these? >> yes, sir. >> got you. other questions for the general, or for the administrator? >> i will ask another. administrator, it is my understanding that the administration is seeking to consolidate about 16 different grants that have been homeland security grant. is there a guiding criteria in this new formula? what sort of principles should we be taking home as be buys our first responders and homeland security networks to hunker down and prepare to maximize partnerships with the federal government? >> going to my notes, it was mainly about the guard, and this was an important part.

in funding the homeland security dollars, there was a bit of reduction. the administration will actually have a $500 million increase. but it will result in fewer dollars. it also means that there is significant pressure on how those funds will be utilized. as part of this, president obama asked us and has issued us new guidance on a national prepared this goal that is shaping how the grant programs are going to move in and of all. what do we need to do by jurisdiction? how do we build capabilities as a nation? it is a different play and how do we build up the capability to respond to large-scale conflict

and disasters? the reality is that we cannot do it ourselves. we have seen that we need to leverage from our neighbors. but the grant structure never reflected that. one of the things we are trying to change in this process is identifying through capability at the local and state level, how it contributes to national. can these things be used in these large-scale conflict and disasters that are very infrequent and would be impossible for any one state or jurisdiction to prepare for, leveraging the jurisdiction that you have as governors to look at the capabilities for building national deployable assets. we realize that some of these things are not deployable, such as fusion centers. there are quite a few capabilities that we saw in the tornadoes across the southeast and missouri, the multiple clubs and challenges, they were from

the national guard and each of your state guard's ability to reach out and touch a lot of those that had been built with homeland security dollars. they gave us a much more effective response. as the funding stream collapse the downwards it was not that the ella -- eligibility went away, it nearly eliminated what had been set aside for each category, saying that as governors, are you prioritizing those issues to your jurisdiction in the context of how it better prepares us as a nation to respond to catastrophic, sometimes on thinkable events? it may be a play on words, but instead of asking what we do for that major city, what are we doing there to contribute to national preparedness? what is the regional shortfall amongst the states? we always talk about regional

approaches. looking at the grant funding, state-by-state, we do not ask what your neighbors are doing. four touching in the same spot, do we need to have the one team? grand guidance is designed to drive towards those capabilities that contribute toward national preparedness, bringing in more competitive environment and looking at what is in reference to in addition to state and local challenges they face. this is one people -- one reason that people were concerned. and you will have to prioritize which ones are contributing toward national preparedness. there would be a lot of coordination across the players,

built across the work that you are already doing where the decisions are made by the responders. even though they are the state homeland security advisers and key components of your state. instead of looking at each jurisdiction and how it contributes to national preparedness, leveraging not the prepared this response, but the national for each state's ability to come to assistance through mutual aid. >> governor, just to pile on, one of the effects is the defense review, which was the creation of 10 homeland response elements, playing into what the administrator has said. 10 of our states, collectively in the northeast, a coalition of states, had created these response forces.

those were the first that were evaluated at the standard set by the united states army, to be able to move across state lines to assist regionally. that is the new way of looking at things, to be very effective and efficient, through the use of force, to support first responders. >> having served as governor before, he and the governor have recognized how it was and how it is now. if it is an invitation to say -- what does it look like in 2020, how does the council and national governors association best provide input as a practical matter to help to shape them?

>> obviously the gentlemen and ladies in this room have lines of communication from the governor's office. i would highly recommend that you ask them to provide feedback. you will find a set -- receptive your tomorrow from secretary panetta. he will probably turn around and challenge us to make sure that there is a process in place to get the input of the governors. the governors can provide very important information to all of us on how best to position the army and air guard. we have a special committee. the governor and by agree that we would like to see it become a permanent committee, as this is not a short-term project.

i think that governor o'malley and i agree. >> administrator, one of the things we wanted to add was the facility with which we could use a better coordination to promote better situational awareness. i know that you and i have touched on that a little bit, but is there anything on that front that you might want to share with the governors assembled here? >> as we continue, the most important thing is the we are not looking within homeland security to develop our own stand-alone system. we have been looking to develop collaborative systems that are at the core tenants of any good management system.

who has the best data? you can see our data without using our software. this is part of what we provide in washington, as we were dealing with irene it was a challenge for everyone to see exactly what was happening. as much as we were employing resources, i became concerned over what was left. without realizing, as we saw in virginia, that we might have a hurricane coming our way. but the earthquake was an unusual event on the east coast. the idea to share across platforms so you could see what we wrongdoing in the systems and you could continue to focus upon building that.

two of the acronyms that we are famous for creating, how do we share the information across platforms without forcing anyone to look at one kind of document or system, also recognizing that the national guard bureau has been our primary source for that status. who is readily available in providing that under the programs? >> governor, with the council tomorrow, this has been the subject of concern and discussion for the last several meetings. we will continue to report on that. >> governor, let's move to the legislative update. there are other directors of the special committee.

i thank you for your good work and for giving us where we need to be today. we appreciate the phone calls and materials that you provide. >> thank you both. it has been an honor and a pleasure to work on this committee's issues over the past year. there has been a great deal of work going on, with a great deal of successes. i really wanted to provide folks with an update. there are other issues in particular that this committee has been working on. the first is the nationwide state the governor broadband network. over the last couple of years we have advocated for cop -- congress to reallocate public safety to build the nation's

first truly interoperable communications network for first responders, addressing one of the last remaining recommendations from the 9/11 commission. bad governance structure be established. i am pleased to report that just over one week ago, congress passed legislation to do these three things. this was included in the spectrum package. they're helping to construct a nationwide network. it allowed each governor to choose whether to build a separate state broadband network. or to consider being part of a national network deployment. insuring interoperability, it will be the governor's decision

at that point in time. now we are focusing attention on implementation. first and foremost, we will be looking to make sure the governor's are represented on the board and will play an integral role in development, asking questions about how the $7 billion will be administered and used. the second that i wanted to discuss with the administrator, homeland security programs. over the last several years, these programs have been cut. making it increasingly difficult for some to maintain national programs. several have been put forward to consolidate them, including ways to provide greater state flexibility in the use of those funds.

the most you -- most recent proposal was the budget 13 proposal, consolidating them into a new program. including a change into how states apply for, received, and measure the grant funds. we will continue to work on the legislative strategy, working with congress and the a administration that your priorities are represented before congress and the administration. i am happy to answer any questions now or in session. >> thank you for the update. i would point out that you have allowed us to condense the policy and, in this case, less is more, so thank you very much.

question, governor? >> no, it was an excellent presentation. thank you very much. i hope that we will not leave before making a decision. i understand the council of governors has a specific task in front of it. perhaps we need to make sure that we do not operate at cross purposes with the council of governors. absent a resolution of that possible dilemma, we would have to come to grips with this national guard question. sending the letter will not work unless we come to grips with the question of what congress may or may not do. specifically armed services committees. have you been the chair three

years out of time -- having been the chair, i can tell you that they are diligent and are working on it now. in the senate committee, we need to get on it and get on it right now. we need to do something that is more than sending a letter to the staff. i think that we need to ask each member to take it upon himself or herself to get ahold of the congressional delegation. more specifically, the members of the requisite committees, making sure they understand what needs to be done. the question will come up, where do we get the money? i do not want to hurt anyone's feelings, so obvious that will. we have got to take a look at what works and what does not

work. what is useful and what is not. we just did the dual status command. with regard to the arm wrestling that had to go on in northern command, there was an infrastructure that was put together. it is a command in search of a mission. dreamed up in the rooms filled area. -- donald rumsfeld era. it first pulled out of the existing command. i asked at the time where they were going to get the personnel. i said -- you mean all of the existing commands were 15% over personnel? no, that was not what it was. i said we had to figure out where the money was coming from.

my suggestion was needed to take a good, hard look as to whether or not they really needed that, now that we had the dual status command structure set up. norad has been drafted in. this is the jack in the launch response factor. just crafted in there for no other purpose other than to try to find something for the northern command to do. it is a command in search of a mission. i imagine that every general in here knows what we're talking about. i, for one, and going to do it. there is an infrastructure there. it is in colorado. i think that the effect is

probably not that great in terms of the state, but we will have to take a look at it. i do not want to break anyone's rice bowl. by the same token, if we do not come to grips with this, we will wind up on the short end. >> we appreciate your depth of knowledge on this. from my perspective and i think it is something that should be taken up on monday. i remember that you brought that up in the previous meeting as well. one of the collective messages that we agree upon is the context that we need with the governor's. we support all military.

i think that we need to continue that discussion, to put it more in context. >> the first governor, as the chair mentioned, is preparing their own platter for the hill on tuesday. that is already in place. second, i think it is important for us to recognize that secretary panetta had nothing to do with that budget. give him our message and see what his response is? how can we work together to get back about whether we have a receptive audience in where we go? my position, and i think our position, is not to cut us.

what we have always said, the principle that we have set forward, is to work with us. especially when you are undertaking the preparation of a budget. we know that there has to be cuts fairly and equitably. it is a disproportionate tax. it is taking the tax out on the guard. failing to recognize the local experience level and the lack of expense so, those are the things we want to communicate to the secretary tomorrow and report back to you all what response we got. >> precisely my point. hands off now, and although i

can say is the zero shares as well. and i do not see it, or at least i am not aware of it. i may not have my finger in every crossed t and a the budget, at the moment. presently, doing their fair share with regards to the context of the air guard, who is having to of resorb at this point. all i am saying is that everyone else should do at least as much

as what is being asked of the guard. the guard is essentially the vessel that is being dipped into and everyone else is standing around and watching it happen. whether it is northern command or the degree and live with it. generally, they can stay eager to the och and it expressed our perspective as governors and it will give us an opportunity and monday to have that expression

and the guards are born -- important to individual states. and without of such -- without exception, any comment that i got from anyone who had comment -- contact with a guard member was positive. i will tell you other areas of government that i have my finger on. i do not want to say it is not always the case, but it is never the case. those of you men and women who provide such a professional and high-level service, thanks seems inadequate. as i speak to individual

governor, thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i want to thank the other generals as well for your time. to my fellow governors, i hope that you realize, as i do, the value of continuing this committee. this was a new invention for us. it is where we like to keep committees to a limited number. or the nation that will not happen by itself? to clarify the policy positions.

if there is no other business, this completes the session for the day. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> you are watching live coverage of the national governors' association in washington, d.c.. the role of the national corp. this is the second day, and the president and first lady will be working with spouses to join the president and mrs. obama.

tomorrow, we will be covering the closing session. this is with the governors association meeting on c-span2, tomorrow, beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern and our live coverage continues. but speaking about god and country, and a live look here coming from michigan. they expected to speak to small- business owners on jobs and the economy. a at -- thank you, thank you,

everybody. thank you. we have a wonderful program for you this afternoon. we have our actual campaign, things we need to know. they are totally aware of these things. number one, the primary state. i know you have hurt a lot about the manipulating it. the first round of the general election. we want to make sure that every other ron paul supporter is there. number two, you may have heard in the media about the primary which means if your register to vote in michigan, you can vote on tuesday. but the polls are closing.

every ron paul supporter out there. perhaps even the entire state. [cheers and applause] and here is what you can do. number one, you can make a list. this means not just the people you went to high school with. people that you were in the service with. everybody. you call them on the telephone. that is about the election on tuesday. if they say they're undecided, you persuade them. in their terms. they are more concerned about the little squabble with mitt romney. [cheers and applause]

they have had some say in the events we have put together here, and one of our speakers is a member of union members who are tired of not having a choice or to refrain from doing so, and that is very important. we were given that choice. we need something like that, becoming the jobs magnet. please welcome terry. >> i am so excited to be here. it is such a great day. i am a uaw member and have been for 15 years, believe it or not, and i am a member of the union conservatives, an organization that believes that every should have their right to voice their opinion about ridiculed.

a lot of people can be asking, that it sounds like a contradiction. is it? 40% of union members do not vote the way their union bosses demand them to vote. they vote their own conscience. they vote the own way they should. 6 million union members in the united states alone who are harassed, ridiculed, and persecuted because of their political beliefs. in 2010, with the three principles, and we were founded, strengthening with conservative principles, building an organization with true voices, and bridging the gap, very important, between union members in liberty, because they do not have liberty on the union shop floor, so a first amendment organization dedicated to bringing unions back from the spiral of far left political activism that is spinning them to the edge of corruption, and one of our biggest issues is the right to work issue.

we believe all workers should have the right to choose whether or not to financially support a third party as a condition of employment. we are pushing the right to work in michigan. we weren't looking at about whether or not the freedom to associate or not to associate with unions, so if you are a believer in freedom in michigan or a believer in liberty in michigan, a right to work is where we need to go. we are so thankful that the ron paul campaign fights for the freedom of its workers all around the country, so we are so proud to be here today, and one thing you can do is to contact governor snyder, because governor snyder, even though he has said in the past that he would sign a right to work bill if it came to his desk, he is backpedaling a little bit to say he does not even want to see it come across his desk, so in michigan, you need to contact

him and say that we believe in that amendment and that they have the right to choose and that it is a freedom issue and a choice issue. again, he we think the ron paul campaign for all of the work they do in supporting conservatives, thank you so much. let's have a great day to day -- today with the ron paul campaign. >> standing strong on the right to work. my next guest is one to introduce small-business owners are on call in michigan. i am very proud of his organization. it seems to me that this is what they have at the end of the day. speaking for ron paul. [cheers and applause] >> it is great being in a

liberty-loving room with friends. i am the founder of a brewing company. i like to say that we have been brewing up liberty for 15 years. i am here with some of my friends, small-business owners, and i just want to give them some of the kudos they deserve as being on the front lines. heroes of commerce in west michigan and beyond. quickly, i want to call their name. you can wait at the end and have a round of applause. we have got zack from remax. kevin, tim, ann, jim, jim, mike,

a medical doctor, david, ryan, meg, melanie, about face media, and lisa, inn --independent researchers, and another. bay are going to exit stage right.

>> please give it up for the congressman. ladies and gentlemen. [cheers and applause] >> you do not send me to congress, so let's help send ron paul to the white house. [cheers and applause] . i had the honor and privilege of introducing ron paul last night at an event featuring are military veterans and service members.

more support than all of the candidates combined. there is a good member why the service member's support him. we swore to support the constitution, just as they did, and they understand, our service members understand the importance of a constitutional form policy. they understand that when we go to war, we must declare a war. but the congress must do it, not just the president. [cheers and applause] . they understand important this of protecting our civil liberties. -- they understand the importance of protecting our

civil liberties. like ron and me, and they are opposed to a group that has provisions. our government should not be allowed to lock you up without charge or trial. they should have to go through the constitutional process. [cheers and applause] . one of the things i and my ear most about ron paul is his consistency. for those who have been watching the debate, you can see how long they have to apologize for their votes. it seems like everyone has to apologize for something new. why they support government-run health care. why do they support no child left behind. why did they support cap and trade. why did they vote to increase the debt ceiling? every time --

every time we have one of these debates, we have to apologize. ron paul has never had to apologize for his voting record. [cheers and applause] you may have recently seen that a nonpartisan group did a study of the budget proposal from the various candidates, and three of the four candidates offered a budget proposals that would increase the debt. only one of the four had a budget proposal that would decrease that. do you know why that is? it is about liberty-minded people in the party like me. the most -- candidate, by far.

liberty-minded republicans are the future of the party. so i want to welcome ron paul to the stage. he is here with his wife, carol, so let's give it up for ron paul. [cheers and applause] >> ron paul, ron paul, ron paul!

>> thank you. it is exciting. it sounds like we have something really going right now. he makes it so much less lonely in washington these days. and justin has been there just the first term, but i met them four or five years ago, and the country is changing, the congress is changing, but we have a lot more to do. it is our job to wake of congress. it is a pleasure to be in the the hometown of my brother, dave paul, and he is with me

today. [cheers and applause] he has some of his grandchildren, and i have one of my grandchildren and me. linda is with me today. [applause] and i brought my wife of a long, and i think a few of you have met my wife, carol. -- and i brought my wife along. i never got applause, which is why i like to give speeches outside of washington. it is much more fun. like i said, the country is much further ahead, and i think it has been true for a long time, the people are ahead of the congress. i think congress is behind the times. i think we need to speed up. we need changes faster than ever

before. for years, i used to set, and a lot of people still say it, and there is some truth to it, that we cannot keep spending the money and borrowing the money when we are going to pass it onto our children, but i do not say that as much anymore because i think the next generation that is going to get that debt passed on to it is that we are that generation, and that is why we have to deal with our problems right now. [cheers and applause] if i were to simplifies our problems -- simplify our problems, we absentia of many people to washington who does not -- do not take their oath of office seriously and have not done what they should know. i think the people have been lax when it comes to getting them reelected. it is not just the president or congress.

the people have been lax, as well, but we need to change this by changing the people's attitude about what the government should be doing, and let me tell you, the government under our constitution is not supposed to be running a welfare state or a warfare state. it is there to protect our liberties. that is what their job is. [cheers and applause] . type in most people recognize the crisis. the bubble burst. a few of us talked about that. we talked about that. the austrian free-market economists have been right with their predictions, and they predicted this would come, and it did come, but now, most of the people realize, not only in this country but around the world, this is not just a u.s. problem, because we are living with a problem that has developed differently than ever before, because we have been the

issue were of a fiat currency called the dollar, and the dollar has been used as a reserve currency as if it were bold, and therefore the inflationary situation in the world and the debt crisis is worldwide, and we are facing this crisis a bigger than ever, so the recognition is there, and this is not all of that bad, because it is when people lived with their heads in the sand that we keep doing the same thing over and over again, and right now, people are waking up and saying they cannot solve the problem with too much spending into a much borrowing and to all much debt by nearly doing the same thing over and over again. that is why i am optimistic, that the people know now that we cannot continue on the same course that we have been doing for the last 40 or 50 years. [cheers and applause]

the economy is obviously the big issue, and certainly in a state like michigan, that is the big issue, and it has to be addressed. some states do better than other states. there are some states in this out that do better than the states and the north, and that is not to act -- not all accident. the federal government does a lousy job providing the environment to be competitive and to be able to compete throughout the world, because they overtax debate over regulate. there is one group of people that we should deal with, and i will talk more about that, and that is a group located in the federal reserve building that we have to deal with. [cheers and applause]

[crowd chanting] now that you want to talk about the federal reserve system, you know, it has been around for 99 years, and they have literally destroyed 99% of what they inherited in 1913, so they are doing a wonderful job. one of their mandates is a stable dollar and stable prices. i do not think they have done a very good job. the other thing they have to deal with is low on the point, and they have not done a good job there either. the problems with the federal reserve and the federal government with the mandates, that is a big thing. some states put a greater burden because you have a regulation, and i think the issue mentioned in the introduction is a big issue, and that is the cost of labor. the cost of labour should be competitive. people should be able to negotiate, and this is to

decide how workers come together and business people come together. there should be no laws prohibiting the organization of labor. labor should have the right to organize and talk. [cheers and applause] business and labor shinbach come together. this is the way that the market would work. who knows? in a competitive market, you might have competitive unions for all we know to try to provide for the best workers, but in 1935, when they did not understand the depression, they claim the depression came about because of the free market, capitalism, and the gold standard, so therefore, what did they do? they destroyed the gold standard and brought more regulations and gave us this keynesian is a, which we have been living with for a long, long time.

but in 1935, they gave us the national labor relations act, and this distorted the balance. it did not deal with the right to organize and the right to contract. it said if you want to get together and organize, you have special powers, so when they talk about getting workers' rights back, i think they are misleading. they are not rights to get from the government. big business get those, but they are not supposed to get bigger powers. states have tried to get around this by having right to work laws and tried to compensate for the special power that have been granted to the unions. so this distorts the union. they have suffered the very most. therefore, it has to be addressed. i support a national right to work law. some of the other candidates do

not support that law, though they are republicans. the first question that should come if someone wants to challenge it, how can you support a national jon? you do not believe in these national laws. to cancel out the special authority, to remove the power and cloud that was given in 1935. that would be a big help for a state like this, if you want to get the economy moving again. just think, in the breakdown, just four or five years ago, there were a lot of automotive companies in the south run by other companies, and they did not have the same problems, so to put our head in the sand can say that this has to happen, and persist, once again, governments are there to guarantee, it enforce contracts.

-- and enforce contracts. it deserves the protection. the government should be restrained. protecting private property. they ought to give us a sound currency. that is what would help the economy today. [cheers and applause] the other major problems we have faced these last five years, allowing a correction. when mistakes are made, you are supposed to have a correction, but nobody wants to have a correction. if they do not have the bailout,

there will be a depression, and there is some truth to that. particularly those that got into the derivatives market, and they were gambling with all of these derivatives. yes, they were in trouble. banks were very much involved. they said this would be a crisis. too big to fail. well, the truth is, they should have failed. they are the ones that should have failed, not -- but instead, what happens is the congress as well as the federal reserve went and bought up all of the bad debt. they did not liquidate the debt. if we want to have our economic growth, we have to get the debt

out of the way. were eventually, we cannot borrow any more money. a country has to do that, too. that debt was propped up. they are still in trouble. what happened to the debt. did the companies that had the debt make all of the money? no, this is on the middle-class americans. this is why it middle-class america is suffering. the bleeding hearts wanted to help. guess what? they are the ones who lost their jobs and lost their houses. they are suffering due to the inflation now. government intervention and government planning, whether 3 federal reserve or congress, does not work. the people have to decide, not the government, not the politicians, and not bureaucrats. [cheers and applause]

today though, we have not resolved that. the debt is still hanging. not only that, our government, the secretary of the treasury, they have traveled quite frequently. they talk all of the time. they have essentially promised that they will bail out europe. they have the reserve currency, and there is still some trust in the dollar. they essentially said they will be there, they will not let the banks fail. dessens the big banks are? they are intertwined. they are global. guess what? the banks and the branches in europe, guess what they bought? they bought the debt from greece and portugal and spain, and they say the debt is not liquid now. illiquid means that it is worthless. we have said to them that we

will be bailing them out because they have more money. they had better understand this. you just cannot do that forever. when it does is it destroys the confidence in the dollar, and right now, i think that is happening, because now the money is starting to circulate. you have heard about gasoline prices. there is one place and florida where gases -- gas prices hit dollars the other day, and yet what does ben bernanke tell us? he tells us there is no inflation. he has a different definition of inflation. he has tripled the supply of money. that is inflation. one of the consequences of inflating the currency or the prices, over the years, what did we have? we had the nasdaq bobble and high prices and a housing bubble. we have high prices wherever

they get their fingers and bob, education. the cost of medical care very high, and then they tell you, it you know, there is not any inflation, but even if you use the old calculation for the cpi, a price is going up about 7%, and he is saying it is going up 2%. they are saying they are allowed to steal 2% of our money every single year and not be charged with a crime. as a matter of fact, i have asked both alan greenspan and ben bernanke in committee about this, about the morality of an economic summit, and they said they have to keep interest rates low and do this to look at the big picture, and some people are just going to suffer, and now,

that is not very nice. because-who suffers? the very people who might want to save money, people who live on social security, it is going up a lot more than 2%. if you have a free market, do you know what people could make on their cd's? 6 per 7 or 8% because that is where the market could go. they invest because they think there has been a lot of savings. they might build too many houses, and all of the different things, so this is the mischief of the federal reserve. eventually, it will be dealt with. this is not new. destruction is around. when they destroy the currency,

they always have to go back to something people have known about, just as the founders know. they put in a bid to put it in the constitution. they also said they could not emit bills of credit, which was money, and they also said, we give you no authority to establish a central bank. now, there was a great debate between jefferson and hamilton in the early years because they kept getting rid of the national bank, suffering with this for the last years, so i am hoping on the hundredth anniversary, we are going to have a bill that is going to repeal the federal reserve act. [cheers and applause]

the other major flaw with the monetary system like this is it enables governments to grow in a sinister manner. jefferson did not even want to borrow money, but he did not win that fight. if they attacked us for everything they do, and we had to send them a check every month, believe me, this will all end rather quickly because the people would rebel. to make that point, a bill to repeal withholding taxes. why should the businessman be a slave and fill out all of these forms prove [cheers and applause] but the real benefit would be that people knew how much they were paying, and it would be

equipped rebellion that would give us back on track again. but because the borrowing had become noticeable, you did not have the fed to monetize the debt, and then the congress would have to quit spending, because the more they spent, the higher the interest rates go up, but we do not have that check, so we have a federal reserve that prints the money when they need the money, and the victims are sometimes unknown. they can get away with that until the end point, when the currency is destroyed. in the meantime, you might have decades for this. we went off of the gold standard completely in 1971. these last years have been nothing but a big bubble that is being formed. the entitlement system and the warfare system. what eisenhower warned us about, that is alive and well.

even though i've studied this for a long time, and i know how some many of you feel, and they are living with their head in the sand. they are living in oblivion. if they thought the problem was one-tenth as serious as i think it is, they would quit spending. that is what they should do. and the whole system is alive and well. this is by just promising whatever the people wanted. we were the wealthiest nation because we were the freest nation. not the richest nation anymore. but they got away off base

because entitlement sounds like a good word. we are entitled to the right to our life and our liberties. but we are not entitled to someone else's money. in goblins have become what people demand or one or insist on. they become entitlements, and literally, i imagine more than that to% of the people in this country thinks that entitlement is a right. we get our lives and our liberty from our creator. we did it in a national way. we do not get it from the government, but we have a right to our lives and our liberty, we ought to back a right to keep the fruits of our labor.

which, of course, means there would be no income tax, if you could live with that. a lot of people will challenge me, of course, because i want to start off the first year with a token $1 trillion. [cheers and applause] and basic, quite frequently, the questions are quite clear, because when the nest egg on the keynesian economics, what would happen if the government quit spending $1 trillion? i said, think of it this way. it is not that the government is point to quit spending $1 trillion, it would be that the government would quit spending, and the people would spend the $1 trillion.

that would be much better. the president should not be running the economy. the president does not know what to do. only the people know what to do on how to run the economy. now, i do not say that we can get out of this mess by snapping our fingers, but i know what we are doing is wrong. it is prolonging the agony, and it will be worse if we do not change our way. what we need to do is not scare people with what the correction is all about. having the problems as long as we are unwilling to sacrifice.

if i said, look, what i want to do, i want to do regulate you. i do not want the government coming in to your state and having mandates. i do not think it is they sacrifice to have less regulation and the federal government. [cheers and applause] and how would it be a sacrifice to you? how many people would say that they are saving for their children's education? a 20-year bond ended half of 1% or point to 5%, and know that you will have the purchasing power in 20 years? nobody believes that. what if you could save money and be confident that you could take care of your future. not only that, the price of education would come down, but what would be a sacrifice to us if we do not have an income tax? that does not sound like a sacrifice to me.

i think that would be wonderful. [cheers and applause] this is important. no matter how many people -- if the people skills they entitlements are our rights, it is not going to work. we have to change people's attitude about the role of government, but there is another area that we have to deadliest address, and i think we have to change a bit this correction over with, and this has to do with what we are doing overseas. [cheers and applause] get we are spending, the dod budget is not as large, but believe me, there are others,

the cia and our troops, taking care of the wounded, it is costing us 01 dollars trillion. our wars have added $4 trillion worth of debt to our national debt, but think, what if we had had this in the economy proved just think how much richer this economy would be, and what have we gotten for all of these wars? we have got nothing but grief. we are not spreading our constitution. we are not spreading our goodness. we are spreading a viewpoint which i do not think is a good one. [cheers and applause] a lot of people believe that there is a moral obligation, starting with woodrow wilson, that we have to prove to the world that we were the most immoral and wise nation and that

we had the right and the obligation to force our way and to teach other people. this, though, does not work. using force to force our goodness on anybody cancels out all of the goodness. american has been a great country, the freest and the bridges, and we have a lot of wonderful traits and wonderful characters, but why do we not concentrate on the free market economy, a sound currency, protection of civil liberties, sensible foreign policy, and then we could be a nation where other countries would want to emulate us and follow our lead? [cheers and applause]

but unless we change our attitudes, and that means the people, about how much we should be involved overseas, it is not going to happen. we will look at a bankruptcy, and that is not that far off. my position is it should be a lot easier for liberals and conservatives and independence to come together and cut overseas spending and cut these wars. i think that would be an easy thing to cut. [applause] which simply means we bring our troops home, as soon as possible. [cheers and applause] now, the other thing about this is it is a way to work our way out of it. if we do not work our way out of it and have a dollar collapse,

everybody's checks bounce, and then we have put will chaos, and i worry about civil liberties, but if we do this and cut the spending overseas, what about all of the effort of worrying about the border that nobody can identify between pakistan and afghanistan. nobody knows, so we just bomb everybody. what about our own borders to the south? they are the responsibility of the federal government. we can do that with a lot less resources, and in the last five years, it is estimated 50,000 people have been killed on that border down there, and it involves not only, i think less of the immigration problem and the failed policy on the drug war is part of the reason. [cheers and applause]

but we would have to change our foreign policy. even up until the mid part, many conservative republicans endorsed it, and we ought to mind our own business. they will come up with all of these arguments where there is a civil war going on, and people are getting killed. they have no idea who the good guys and bad guys are. but they have to get involved, they say, but how many times did we get involved with the most vicious of dictators, from stalin to mao's a taunt -- mao zedong.

we do not need a war, and i will tell me that. cheers and applause -- [cheers and applause] [crowd chanting, "ron paul, ron paul, ron pual!"] you do not have to cut benefits to the elderly. on practical grounds, if you want to deal with this and deal in a practical way, let's cut the spending overseas and try to take care of the people that we have taught for 50 years to

become dependent on the federal government and then work our way out. one of the proposals is to take care of the people who are dependent and need the help, but we would need the chance to change the social security system and start out with anybody getting out of college, let them take care of themselves. that, of course, would not work unless you did the cut in. but the founders were very, very clear on this, and as they advised strongly, do not get involved in entangling alliances. do not get involved in policing the world. but there thing was trading with people and talking to people and not try to solve all of the other problems, but today, we do exactly the opposite. i think one of the most foolish

examples of the sanctions, not at the time, but now, do you not think that sanctions on cuba have gone on long enough? other countries are doing business with them. communism is dead. what i am worried is about the inflationism and what we have today. that is our real threat. besides, the countries that we do end up dealing, they killed 1 million, closer to 1 million or more of the vietnamese. we lost 60,000, and we lost that war, and they said there would be a domino effect that would spread throughout the world. it did not happen. now, we do business with the vietnamese. just think of what has happened since we left there in 1973 or so. since we left there, think of what happened so why are we

determined to think that this is necessary. there is an economic theory about this, which is a dangerous theory. we did not get out of the depression until we had world war ii. that is foolish thinking, because war never helps your economy. it never helps. now, the reason for the fallacy is be on the planet rate went down because everybody was over, 10 million people went overseas fighting, but a lot of people argue with me about my $1 trillion cut in spending because they have been caught, as the keynesian teaches, spend more money when you are in trouble. if you do this, would that not hurt the economy? but think about it.

if you have $1 trillion, and you cut it, the people are going to get to cut it. but after world war ii, 10 million military people came home. we cut the budget by 60%. taxes went down 30%. when we come around to understanding that we do have a responsibility for strong national defense, we have to have a strong national defense, but the founders try to do their best about the king going to war, but i'm fortunate, people have been acting like kings, have not been getting your permission for a war. we would fight it, win it, and come home.

[cheers and applause] the iraq war was a consequence of 9/11, because there were no weapons of mass destruction, no al qaeda, but when they came up, i was on the committee, and it was not a declaration of war. the president can do whatever he wants. this is how they reneged on the responsibility, which sort of upset me a little bit, so i introduced a substitute resolution. i told the committee. you guys want to go to war. i do not want to go to war. i am not going to vote for it. if you want to do it, you can vote it up or down. they said i am going to make you record the vote, against the

declaration of war. but it was explained to me by the committee chairman at the time that they were tried to explain to the constitution. they said that part of the constitution is anachronistic. we do not follow that part of the constitution anymore. that tells you why we are in trouble today because the constitution does not mean a whole lot. we got into this mess by sending only people to washington that will obey the constitution. . the other serious consequence of big government, whether it was

for the entitlement or the warfare system, the bigger the government gets, the smaller the people get. the less civil liberties we have. it is characteristic that civil liberties are compromised. people accept this idea and under the special emergency conditions, we have to give up a bit of our liberty. but we tell you, you do not. you do not have to give up liberties to be safe. but today, today, we have a perpetual war. it is worldwide. we are in 130 countries, 900 basis, because we are fighting a war. the taliban are just people who want us out of their country. that is what they want, but the war is worldwide, and therefore, we shouldn't expect a continuation of an attack on our civil liberties, much worse than

i think it has been. immediately after 9/11, i voted to go after al qaeda. that is proper, even though i saw this intriguing to this problem. we did not even catch osama bin laden. it had zero to do with it. but what did they do for the american people? we suffer from the consequence with that. within two eggs, there was a bill on the floor that they were trying to pass, and that bill was called the patriot act. that was voted very easy. i was sitting next to a member of congress at that day. [cheers and applause]

why are you voting for this bill? you know it has only been on the floor for one hour? we do not know what is in it? i said, "you know this is going to be bad stuff." how can i go home and tell people that i voted for the patriot act right after 9/11. that is your job. explain it to them. but almost always, if you look at aid bills name coming out of congress, it is almost inevitable that is going to do the opposite of what it says. a very unpatriotic bill. if they would have called it be repealed fourth amendment act, i guess no one would have voted for it. [cheers and applause]

when we get a chance to repeal this, we will not call it repealed the patriot act. we will call to be restored the fourth amendment act. [cheers and applause] -- we will call that the restore the 4th amendment act. the tsa would then not feel they had the right to prod us at the airport. one year ago, the president announced in this progress against our liberties that is a proper procedure for the president of the united states to assassinate american citizens on his say. to prove his point, he has done it three times already. but the congress has not been much better. the congress passed a bill. the president signed it on january 1 of this year. the authorization act. which justin mentioned, because

he was as opposed to it as i was. [cheers and applause] but this bill, this bill literally repeals, keeping the military with the civil laws, it allows the military to arrest any american citizen if they are associated with any particular group, just associated. no trials. he can be arrested, put into secret prison, denied an attorney, and kept indefinitely. we put it on the books. that has to be reversed. [cheers and applause]

[crowd chanting, "ron paul!"] now, you think that was pretty bold on what they did, but there was one other provision that was removed. there was one other provision in the bill and nearly pass. it had gone through the house and was coming out of the senate. when it was on the senate floor, the provision said if you are arrested, and you are charged, and you have a trial, and they find you innocent, they can still keep you in definitely in prison. but, fortunately, there was a senator that i think was from kentucky that got that removed. [cheers and applause]

i think you knew about all of those problems. i do not think i have given you anything new. you have given me some more energy because of your enthusiasm, because i know you are out there, and there are a lot of people out there, in your numbers are growing by leaps and bounds. [cheers and applause] the revolution is alive and well. it is an intellectual revolution, and let me tell you, there are a lot of young people, wanting to lead the charge, and that is great with me. [cheers and applause] there are a lot of others, a lot of others, in the older generation that have been rather frustrated over the years that are being energized, being energized by everyone together, realizing that the end stage is getting closer for the system that we have, and that should encourage all of us, because it is well grounded, sound

economics, sound principles, sounding more judgment about what we should do. at least in this crowd, i would not think anybody would boo me for saying that we should apply the golden rule to our policy >> and john adams says we need a tireless, irate minority. we don't need a majority. we need a minority because they energize the rest of the people. what we have today or even under communism, you don't have 51%. it is an irate minority that emphasize this. this is what we have today, and it is growing and we are influencing other people. we are in transition.

there are going to be a lot more people coming to congress. [applause] if you look at what is happening across the country, we can't even keep track of all. igor on the country, this got moving about free jake i'd go around the country and this got moving. this is how a real revolution occurs. ultimately, if these ideas are to prevail, they will not be republican ideas. to have to be pervasive and invade democrats, independents, and republicans alike, because that is what we are facing today. [applause] nixon said that all when he said we have to get off the gold standards -- he said we are all

can marcion's now. -- carol keynesian said now. but we all have to believe in the free market and sound money now. it has been said that an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by anything military, but military can stop and government can't stop it. i believe it -- i did bought invent these ideas. it's part of our american tradition that has been going on for many hundreds of years. but these have only been tested in a small manner. then we became the wealthiest and largest middle-class ever. now that is shrinking and we are grateful week -- we are greatly in that and we are getting poorer. our chances going to fade unless we pick up the pieces and refine it. we don't have to go back to the 19th century gold standard because there are a better

understanding of economic policies and entitlements. this is the reason -- if we bring people together, this is going to work. that is what freedom does. we will never agree on how we want to use our freedom because we will never agree in a room like this. there might be 50 different religious values and some with no religious values at all, but freedom answers the question because we don't impose themselves -- and -- we don't impose ourselves on the other people. you do what you want. [applause] this should be true not only in religious values but economic values, this idea that government has to take care of us and protect us from ourselves and make sure does single person falls through the cracks -- the more they try to prevent people from falling to the cracks, the more people fall through the

cracks. that's what the problem is. we don't want to tell people how to spend their money. it will incite people to do more for themselves and they will have a greater incentive and a community responsibility and more local responsibility. there will be greater wealth in the country. history shows the freer a country, the welfare a country. we have lost the moral high ground because we give it up to people is a the only way you can spread fairness around the world and around this country is by government forces, by forcibly redistributing ralph and regulating -- redistributing wealth and regulating. we have to have a firm grasp of how freedom works and why you have to have sound money and it will change. this is why it is so wonderful, what is happening.

we should be optimistic but not casual. those who are in charge and are in control of the financial system, military and foreign policy, they will not go away quietly. this will end because like i said the other night on tv, the opposition will not accept the constitutional argument. this can't go on because we won't have the money to pursue these policies. [applause] benjamin franklin once said those who expect to enjoy the fruits of liberty must undergo the fatigue of supporting it. i don't like to call at sacrifice, but there is some fatigue and some effort. those of you who would come to a meeting like this have a greater

responsibility because the masses out there will not be understanding the same things you do. if you understand this, you have to bear the burden. if you believe in it, it has to happen. my answer is do whatever you want to do. do what you want. [laughter] [applause] everybody will have a different role to play. some will run for congress, some will make a lot of money and encourage us by donating a lot of money. but i think the most important thing we all do which i try very hard to do is try to understand why you -- how you can compete with each argument. ultimately, education is the test.

fink of what we have on nightly tv. i never get asked questions from an austrian economic viewpoint. there will be something for you, one way or the other. i really do believe it brings people together. everyone will use their freedoms in a different way. people should come together we should come together to fight for the principle that we can all join in a different manner which is enjoying celebrity we have gotten in a natural, god- given way. thank you very much for coming today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [applause]

>> we are live this afternoon at a ron paul event coming to us from michigan. yes just finished speaking and is meeting with some supporters now. it is expected he will speak to reporters and we are expect acting to have that live. coming up, we will also have newt gingrich, live from georgia. he is giving a speech on god and country. live events for you, here on c- span.

>> what do you cut not to spend a trillion dollars? >> an order not to spend a trillion? basically half comes from overseas, cuts back on militarism but not defense. we don't think we heard defense, but we close down all the bases and just come home and quit fighting the wars. that is a big hunk of money. we go back to the 2006 budget line, instead of having automatic increases, like $10 trillion, ours is to do the opposite and lower the trend line and go back to 2006 and get rid of five departments. this will give you a trillion dollars. >> how long does it take you to get rid of a 16 -- $at 16 trillion debt. that probably will not shrink the debt itself. it just gets the budget balanced

in three years. that's how big the problem is. it stopped the bleeding. right now, there's no effort -- they are only proposing to tinker around the edges and now that we have the statistic out that our gdp per capita is worse than greece in this country -- that is how serious the problem is and nobody wants to cut anything in the have been topic cutting is bad when you are in a recession. after world war two, exactly the opposite occurred. >> senator santorum has said there is an alliance between you and governor romney, but given that you and the governor are so different in some ways, why aren't you going after him harder? >> i think most of that has been concocted. having my first ad was directed toward him as a flip-flop for

and i don't hesitate to say there is not much we agree with. may be partially on taxes. he wants to go in the right direction and cut some taxes but he and i don't agree on foreign policy or monetary policy. i think it is best for my campaign to go after people who are the so-called anti-romney votes. there used to be nine and now there are only four of us. if we can whittle that down a little bit, the contest becomes two of us. >> you have had to very large rallies and a very good, attendance-wise. will you go to ohio and campaign the same way ahead of the primaries? >> i'm not the best one to ask my exact schedule. it's possible, but i don't know if it's on the schedule. right now, we are thinking of three or four more states, and

going back to washington and of going to alaska and we have to go where we can pick up delegates and we're doing quite well. we are recognized to be in second place for the delegates who are committed. >> nato and the u.s. have pulled [inaudible] out of the afghanistan ministries. how do we reach an agreement with the government that we don't trust? >> we don't trust them and they really don't exist. karzai is hardly the government and he could not win an election. we are responsible for much of the chaos. the sooner we get out of there, the better, and not lose any more lives. >> we don't need a strategic partnership with afghanistan? >> no.

someday, they might be more stable and might want to talk to us. i do like these mutual defense treaties. a mutual friendship and trade, we should have that as an open auction, but to think we are going to keep using troops over there, and spending our money until we get the guy in the government somebody wants is not going to work. >> you said in virginia, there will be an opportunity to go one on one with romney. your thoughts on that? >> in virginia, had a chance to go? >> [inaudible] >> that is the case. we will because nobody else is in virginia. it is a tougher job to spend a lot of money statewide. we will go and we will work, but

to what extent i don't know. >> [inaudible] >> i haven't come up with a number on that, just so we get some delegates. >> [inaudible] >> it actually repealing the authority, the artificial power given to union. it's called the national right to work act but it's actually repealing artificial a 40 given to unions to have an automatic closed shop by 51% vote. >> [inaudible] have muchople don't trouble figuring that out. first, the foreign-policy. dramatically different. it's a foreign policy of non- intervention and designed to bring about peace and save a lot of money and work our way out of this terrible economy. civil liberties, nobody else is talking about. the patriot act -- civil

liberties, a distinct difference between not only the republicans but the democrats as well. the parties are exactly the same. monetary policy, but i'm the one who addresses the serious flaws in the monetary system that creates bubbles and the inevitable recessions and depressions. i'm the only one offering a real cut in the budget. >> [inaudible] >> they hear the message and understand they're going to be super supportive because i don't see any way we can get out of this mess. >> [inaudible] what are your thoughts on that? >> i don't think it's my business to tell romney when he's supposed to drop out or whatever.

that political talk and i don't do too much of that. >> you were pretty clear during our speech, but it seems like a daunting task because generations of people are used to this money. >> the daunting problem is to continue to do all we do and have runaway inflation. that is what people should fear. even though and the fed is possible -- is popular -- i think the fed will self- destruct and disappear sunday. i advocate competition with the fed, allowing parallel currencies to operate like a worldwide. you could do that domestically and if people did not want to save and a federal reserve note on because it just loses value, maybe they could save in a gold bond. this is something that allows a transition period if we want to

move more quickly, we can look at the history after the civil war. one of gold in 1861, had the restoration act and it took three years. they quit printing money, they didn't have that and they withdrew some greenbacks and the gold price went from $200 an ounce down to $20 an ounce and was a total non-event. if they did what i said about spending cuts, bring the troops home, change the entitlement system, you could do that. but right now, the best thing is to allow people to use constitutional money. when people try to use gold and silver today, they can be arrested because the federal reserve note -- there is no legal definition of a dollar. it used to be defined in terms of gold, but if you start using gold and silver as money, you get arrested and your gold and

silver can be confiscated. >> did you say your brother lives here? >> yes. he is retired here. he had a church in detroit 20 years or so. he has been here about 10 years and it was an assistant pastor and he's here with me today. >> that is not why you decided to campaign in michigan? >> it was nice -- he doesn't live too far from here. we have three events tomorrow across state. >> thank you. >> ron paul in michigan today. more road to the white house coverage here on c-span today. coming up at 6:00, we will be

live from georgia with newt gingrich speaking on god and country. more road to the white house coverage tomorrow with rick santorum. he will be speaking in kalamazoo, michigan. we will have that life for you tomorrow on c-span3. more coverage now from earlier today, a panel focused on alleviating a childhood hunger. this is a little more than one hour.

>> good morning, we would likewe will get started in a minute. >> all right, the meeting of the national governors' association education and early childhood development and work force is called to order. we will see some more filter in has the original meetings conclude which has been going on. i am the governor of arkansas and chairman of this committee and honored to be joined by our vice chairman. together, i think we have enjoyed this committee over the last several months. a bit of housekeeping -- those of you who have your cell phones on, please put them on vibrate or silent or something else. we have one of our own weapons, the secretary of agriculture is a governor, too, or used to be a governor. he can appreciate what is going on with most of us better perhaps than most folks involved in the federal government and we are grateful that he is here. briefing books for this meeting were sent to governors in advance and can be found in a blue binder in front of you.

background information and updates. you all know joan wodiska. she makes the members of the nga look good. she is so confident and we will hear from three distinguished panelists and after their formal remarks of our panelists, we will have the opportunity to have a discussion with questions and answers and comments. i am looking forward to today's discussion and i did most of the folks here will be as well. as governors, one of our greatest and most solemn duties, i think, is to promote education and the well-being of our nation's children. one of the impediments to that is security. 10% of the children in the united states today are about 8.5 million children are food insecure. that means at times, the

quality, variety, and the quantity of children's meals are inadequate. this is a serious threat for every state. this undermines the economic vitality of our states because hungry children have a much tougher time learning. i am personally involved in this topic and have devoted a substantial amount of time and resources to this issue in our on stage. freedom from hunger is a fundamental and basic human needs. as governors, we are uniquely positioned to draw attention to this issue and bring people together to end childhood hunger. we have the bully pulpit and our respective states to be able to call the attention. lack of proper nutrition during school year or seven months contributed to a cycle of poor performance. numerous studies show that when a child's nutritional needs are met, the child is more attentive in class, as better attendance, demonstrates fewer disciplinary problems, and shows better academic performance.

properly nourished children are active her participants and the education experience which benefit to them, their fellow student, and the entire school community. governors across the country are working to eliminate child under through a broad range of innovativet ofhe nga meeting in 2010,"share our strength"talked to me about childhood hunger in my own state which had the highest percentage of children classified as food insecure. that was then and is still unacceptable to me. it undoubtedly is to all other governors. we share our strength approach and we signed on and started no kid hungry campaign in arkansas, we have made significant strides to improve access to the programs that provide nutritious food for children and for their parents.

that means our kids will perform better in school and have a brighter futures and most importantly, it means kids will have enough to eat and will not go to bed hungry. develop an infrastructure and we have developed a coalition of business leaders in education professionals and others with strengths to share. effort with generous support from corporate partners including wal-mart and others, is working to increase participation in federal food and nutrition programs. that includes school breakfasts, some meals and enrollment in the supplemental nutrition assistance program. it is working. the caseload was increased.

we did this by training volunteers and staff of more than 50 local agencies. in 2010, we served 263,000 more meals at summer feeding sites than we did during the previous year. anecdotally, one of the impediments to breakfast in the classroom was the stigma. more often than not, a lot of young people who were eligible and needed breakfast in the classroom were reluctant because of peer to peer pressure. by providing it and making it available for all the children,

notwithstanding their social or economic status, it removes the stigmata and allows a greater opportunity for greater participation. we have to make it a priority in childhood hunger and it is our responsibility that our kids and their families have those resources by making sure no kid goes hungry. we can elevate not just the basic need but also that educational opportunity and that learning achievement. i would like to ask our vice chairman from my neighboring state of tennessee for any opening remarks that he would have. >> thank you, governor. [inaudible] [unintelligible] a promise to share back. what i was trying to say is this is my third nga meeting.

we brag about how well we are doing and we still good ideas from other folks. i think the governor gave us a taste of that. we plan to do vote today. this session comes at an important time for us. congress in 2010, passed the act to which we authorized our nation's child feeding program. we have the honor today of being joined by our secretary and former iowa governor pierre tom vilsack who will offer his unique perspective on the role that governors would peg in addressing childhood hunger as well as opportunities for state and the federal government to parker as a look at the new child nutrition laws.

we'll hear from representatives from two major companies who are leading efforts to partner with governors to solve childhood under issues. one of the opportunities we have today is to understand better how we can create and leverage public-private partnerships or maybe it is as simple as part 9 with wal-mart or dominion to address child hungerissues. with that, i will introduce our very first honored guest. he seems to be on a downward trending career path. he is now the secretary of agriculture but at one time he was a governor and before that he was a mayor. you're definitely heading the wrong way career-wise. he is the secretary of agriculture and was appointed by the president in january of 2009. one of the things he is working on as revitalizing our rural communities. i am fairly certain states like tennessee, that our biggest economic challenges tend to be in the rural areas. the former governor understands

that well and i think it is one of his well-placed praise and serving our natural resources and providing a safe and nutritious food supply. he is targeting child hunger and obesity, things we know are both are larger issues to our country. prior to this, he served two terms as the governor of ohio and before that was a state senator and mayor of mt. pleasant, iowa. mr. secretary, on behalf of the nation's governors, welcome back. >> thanks very much. it is an honor to be here today. i know how important these meetings are and certainly appreciate the opportunity to be back at the nga, which is a great organization and a great opportunity to talk about common goals. we share with governors a deep concern about the future of our children.

nutrition is an extraordinarily important aspect of a child's first years. it is important that children receive interest as food and we are doing our best at the usda to make that happen. when i was first asked to take this job by president obama, the first set of instructions and directions he gave to me after he offered me this opportunity was to make sure that children were well fed. that was his first direction. we notice statistics and they are startling. we have youngsters who are food insecure and living in food insecure house but we have children being obese or near obese. we have been very aggressive at usda. we have been spending the last year since the passage of an acting the rules and regulations that will govern. this is the first update in milstead is that has taken place

within the last 15 years. is the first non-inflationary increase in 30 years in schools and we estimate that over the course of the tenures of the act, roughly $3.2 billion will be provided to schools to provide better access to meals and more nutritious meals. we also recognize the important role that states play in the administration and oversight of these programs which is why the bill provided for nearly $100 million to state to defray administrative expenses. it is designed in part to better correlate the standards for these mills that youngsters are receiving at school with the dietary guidelines based on recommendations from the institute of medicine. you will see more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, more low-fat dairy. you will see less sodium, less sugar, and less fat. it has also expanded efforts to try to make the program more streamlined. the use of direct certification

is making it easier for schools to administer the program hopefully saving resources. we have also provided for expansion of the program to include foster care children which addresses some of the concerns we had about youngsters who are in transition and whether this program would be available to them. the foster care child expansion allows that to happen. we have been working on a pilot basis with a number of states to see whether there are ways in which areas that have significant high levels of low income families might be able to get by with not even have an application process because 80%-90% of the students will qualify saving resources for schools. part of this act encourages more physical activity and i would be remiss if i did not acknowledge the first lady's efforts with her let's move the effort. it is not just calories in, it is calorie out.

this provides transition time for schools to comply with these requirements. the extra reimbursement this year will kick in beginning next school year for those school districts that are now living up to the standards. we have some encouragement for schools to participate in the u.s. and healthier school challenge. there's a small monetary reward for schools that comply with the standards of this challenge. requires better nutrition and more physical activity and would encourage the governor's ear to encourage their school districts across the country to apply for participation in this program. it is a very good program and will encourage expansion of food programs for children. this bill also takes into consideration the caloric content for the first time and measures that caloric content based on the age of children we are very much involved in this and we are involved in making these mills a bit more delicious.

sometimes good food has been not necessarily presented in the right way. that is why we enlisted chefs from all over the country to come up with innovative and creative recipes to make good food delicious. usda.gov is where you can find recipes and i would encourage schools in your states to take advantage of those new recipes. in addition to the healthy younger free kids act, the budget also includes $35 million to create a competitive opportunity for the purchase of cafeteria equipment. in order to encourage and improve meals that some schools will need to take a look at the possibility of preparing meals at school but don't have the equipment and we are hopeful this grant program could help over 10,000 schools provide equipment. let me say a couple of things about the times when school is

not in session. this is one of the critical periods of time where we all face and that is one of the reasons we have begun to partner with a theme-based organizations to see if we can expand the number of summer feeding sites. students are in school for 180 days per year but not in the weekends or during summer vacation. we have expanded significantly the number of participants in our summer feeding programs. we will continue to do that and continue to provide resources for that. it is fairly clear that we have to reach out to the non-profit private sector to assist us. we have to figure out ways in which we go to where the youngsters are as opposed to having youngsters come to where the food is. in my small town of mount pleasant where my children were raised, during the summer, i found most of the kids in one of two places -- at the ballpark at a little league game or at the swimming pool. we need to figure out ways where we can potentially have mobile food opportunities that would

provide nutritious snacks to youngsters. we are heavily engaged in trying to improve the messages we sent through our vending machines in schools. we will be forthcoming in the near future with the standards for competitive foods in schools. despite the concerns about bake sales, we will not limit itself. we understand that is important. if you have a vending machine, we want to make nutritious choices easy choice and we found that indeed, youngsters will react favorably to nutritious snacks and they will continue to buy from those vending machines. we will continue to work with schools on continuing education. schools have been facing difficult budgets and are looking into ways in which they can streamlines course selections. sometimes that selection

involved nutrition education. we are encouraging folks to find creative ways during the lunch hour to provide educational opportunities to youngsters. there is no reason why the cafeteria work force cannot provide some degree of assistance in this area. we know there are a number of schools actively looking at this type of concept. we are also working with schools to make it easier for them to link up with producers in their area giving schools greater capacity to use geographic preference in the selection of foods so that if farmers and ranchers are producing food in the local area that that could create a new market opportunity for them. it could still keep the wealth by them in the community and provide safe and nutritious food for youngsters. let me just finish by saying that we are very committed to working with the states as best we can within the confines and restrictions that congress has

provided in the healthy younger free kids act. the snap program is one where we're working with states and have seen a significant increase in the enrollment and part of that is because states are doing a better job. i want to commend the governors for their efforts. we have seen the result of people learning about these programs that they are beginning to sign up for. i am proud of the fact that the error rate in this program working with governors across the country is at its lowest level in the history of the program. the fraud rate is at its lowest rate in the history of the program. we continue to try to maintain the integrity of this program but also make sure it gets to the folks who are in need. the snap program is remarkable, roughly 46 million people receiving benefits, and the interesting thing about those benefits, only 8% of the people

receiving benefits are on cash welfare 92% are not. that means that you are providing resources to senior citizens, to working men and women, and two children and to people with disabilities. those four groups make up the 92%. a lot of these recipients are children. in addition, for every dollar that is invested in this program, $1.90 of economic activity is generated. it makes sense that more food is being purchased, more food has to be stocked, shelled, package, processed, so it affects all down the line for it is one the reasons why snap because 90% of benefits are spent within 90 days of being received. it is a program that is important to maintain and ensure the to integrity and we are conscious of that.

we have enjoyed working with the governors and we appreciate the state's efforts and better out reach and look forward to the opportunity to answer questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. secretariat i am gratified about your sensitivity and emphasis to the summer feeding program. it is an area that all us need to expend as much help in the private and public sector as is possible. i recall an article or at least a chapter from the book "the outlyers" that had a chart demonstrating the three economic groups and their relative test scores. they tested these grade school children at the end of may and divided the class with high income, median income, and blue -- and low income children and

the scores in those three groups were relatively the same. there was very little difference between the test scores and all three groups at the end of the school year. they tested the same kids in august after the summer had been completed and it was a marked difference between the test scores in the low income students and the medium and upper income students. part a that can be attributed to a number of reasons separate and apart from nutrition to the extent that we all believed that the kid that as congress does not learn or a kid that is hungry does not progress or a kid that some great might regress, there has to be some element of nutrition and food insecurity during the summer months that contribute to some of those statistics. your attention, the department's attention, to the summer program is greatly appreciated.

i think all the governors recognize there is more we can do and more the private sector can do and we will hear from them in a little bit. they have been wonderful in terms of trying to augment the summer issue. i have a question and then i'm sure everybody else has questions -- i am concerned about what is in the built with the minimum price for school lunches that are paid for by children who don't qualify for the program. i and understand the bill calls for $2.46 but you gradually get there with incremental increases. i am worried about whether or not this can have a chilling affect on some the families that might just be above the borderline and whether or not we will see a drop in the participation in the school lunch programs. i also worried little about the relative difference in the cost of living. if someone has an $80,000 per

your job in manhattan that has a inevitably less buying power than the same in kentucky or in arkansas or other places. a static figure that does not take those into considerations is a discrepancy. will there be any consideration given to the relative differences in terms of the effect on families? >> that is a great question. the reason why congress included this was based on experiences in schools, we were finding that the school districts were basically using the free and reduced reimbursement to subsidize fully paid males. that was a concern that congress needed to address. they tended to do this and a

gradual way to the extent that milk prices had to increase forkful paid students and it would do so over a period of time and not increase dramatically in one year. the theory is that perhaps by doing this, you will actually have the reek -- be adequate resources in that program combined with the reimbursement level increase to provide more nutritious food for all youngsters. we will monitor this. we don't want to discourage participation in the program. at the same time, we want to make sure that folks who need the help get that help and folks who may not necessarily need as much help don't get as much help. we don't want school districts basically using the money from the federal government that is supposed to subsidize the free and reduced lunch folks from basically shortchanging them and providing a lower cost mail for those who can afford to pay.

our reimbursement levels tested based on the geographic areas and i will look into that issue that you have raised. we will keep an eye on it but rest assured, the goal here is not to discourage participation. is to make sure the resources are used in the way they were intended. >> i think it is incumbent to provide information to you from all of us so if we see decrease participation that we don't expect you to find it all out and we should do our part to communicate that information to you we will instruct our people in our state to give us that data and see if there are any trends in that regard. >> i think you are uniquely positioned to understand the push-pull between federal government and governors about us wanting more flexibility with 10 different federal programs. one of the concerns we have had with the help the hungry kids act is maybe the flexibility

that may not be built and. i think the act requires an evaluation or inspection every three years and i think the governors had written a letter saying that would help us in terms of cost and our own control to have it every five years if the program merited it. if it was shown that the schools and needed a level of attention, we would do it every three years but to have that flexibility between three and five on performance, we think that makes sense. there is a cost factor to us in the increased inspections. is there any more flexibility you can give us in terms of the frequency of inspection?

>> that is another good question. it's somewhat depends on what congress intended in establishing this requirement. our reading of congressional intent and we are governed by that is that we have a three- year requirement and would have the discretion to actually provide for less than three years if we saw a bid to combat actor. our reading does not indicate we have the discretion to provide a longer period of time between reviews. if you look at what congress has done in this act, you can understand why they wanted someone to be looking to insure this act was being followed and the nutrition standards were being lived up to and the physical activity efforts were being met. i understand the concept here and it is one that, as a governor, i supported and used for a variety of inspection and review process as it i can commit that i would be more than happy to go back to our

preparations folks to see whether or not we get clarification on this interpretation. the nga has a slightly different view of the congressional intent very we think we're probably right but it does not necessarily mean that congress cannot change its mind and provide the flexibility. i would be willing to commit that i will make an effort with our preparations votes to see if we can either get an acknowledgement from congress that your interpretation is correct in which case we would work with you or give escalator -- greater flexibility than they intended originally. >> it would not surprise you to think that we're probably right. >> you know how that work [laughter] >> questions or comments or suggestions or ideas from the members? yes, sir. >> mr. secretary, thank you so much

thank you for all your work on this and i think the school lunch programs are a breath of fresh air. in colorado, and many states are looking at the amount of sugar and you mentioned soft drinks and working with the competitiveness of that but i would encourage you to also -- we have a 9-year-old in public schools and the amount of sugar they get every day for succeeding in a little competition is at a level that is hard to imagine how they can work it all off. we are trying to make sure that every communication that comes into our school district and state government and federal government all begins talking about trying to look at the calories coming in. we're also trying to look get how they don't scare gym and they are acted out on the playground. i want to plant that seed.

>> hats off to the food industry. canned fruit and frozen fruit that is available to students now is being formulated with less sugar. that will probably continue. there are examples of less fat and less sodium as well and low-fat dairy products to be made available. the industry is responding to the concerns. we are engaged in every one of our programs to try to be consistent. our package contains more fruits and vegetables opportunities and we are reformulating standards in terms of how things are packaged. the syrup in can for a test to be light syrup now. we're working at a two-year research to make sure we can see snap participants will continue to purchase.

the card is formulated so that the snap recipient is only charged 80% of the purchase price of a get a discount. we've got a research team looking to see if there are always in which that will encourage. many folks use the snap program to restrict what they want to buy but there are 300,000 items that can be purchased at a grocery store. if you had to choose between reduced sugar shredded wheat board sugar the shredded wheat for your child, which would you choose? choose? based and your question, o