immigrants, people who had never gone through the process before or people who did not understand these loans, they were very complex loans and in many cases had bells and whistles on them that made them very complex. we are not talking about your 30-year fixed mortgage. we are talking about mortgages with a pre-payment penalty that were very significant. you get away with a small amount that way the amount of the loan would 11 instead of reduced. these were extremely complex, difficult for many people to understand. people selling them had no care about what happened to the loan ultimately because they were selling them to someone else. they would not be holding it when the loan went bad. i disagree. there was a lot of predatory

lending. yes, the contracts were agreed to, but the banks or mortgage lenders have responsibility to make sure that their customers understand what they are signing. this is the biggest financial transaction that many people have in their entire life. it is not something that should just be done lightly. this was all a part of a big push for homeownership. that is my response to that week. host: next is a call from los alamos, new mexico. your honor. caller: thank you for taking my call. i agree with a lot of what has been said. people just talk about the big banks and mortgage brokers, but it ultimately comes down to individuals. i had a person say they would loan 115% value of my home. the reason why you can do that and not play it -- pay principal or interest is because the value of the property will be going

up. they should have disclosures on people in those professions just like real cars. they should be personally liable for those things they say and do. another part that people ignore is that i saw housing projects selling for $100,000 and the unit went up in price to $140,000 in the time of six months. it is not just the big entities involved. it comes down to these builders, banks. it needs to be looked at in a micro level, not a macro level. there needs to be weighed punish individuals for the decisions they make, whether it is a builder with a 50-unit complex or a mortgage broker says those types of things. it has to go down to that level. with the information technology we have in place today, permits are told that the local level.

why did they not all the information to see all of the buildings under construction? no one even looks at that. can you address those? guest: this was a mania. it was a free-for-all. it was built around a couple of sales ideas. one, housing prices never fall. real estate always holds up. that was the first lot idea that really helped this bubble balloon. as you point out, there was a public-private partnership going on here that really created this media. yet the government essentially urging banks, mortgage lenders, insurers, regulators to join hands and promote home ownership

so that we could get the rate of homeownership up from 64%, where it was in 1995, the 70% which is what bill clinton wanted when he launched this for homeownership. yes, this is an enormous industrial complex. it involves many different participants, public and private. i agree with you about the accountability. it really has been very little. there have been mortgage frauds at the local level, but moving up the ladder, we see very, very little. that would be my response. i think you are right on about the complexity, the strategic nature of this push that really

involved so many participants. host: out what to piece together a few items as a prelude for my next question. here is a comment from mr. demarco reported in "the financial times." and if you're tweets us -- a viewer tweets us -- and here is mr. demarco responded to critics in the senate banking committee. [video clip] >> i take it seriously but we of communities and families across the country that have been greatly harmed by this. fhfa is trying very hard to be a

part of bringing solutions and stability back to this. i will do so in a disciplined way following the mandate i believe congress has given us. host: this last pieces from your column where you write, -- it is far easier to rail against one man who is preventing the great american housing recovery and, you say, the cries are bound to become even more strident. can pick up the theme from there, please? guest: again, this goes back to the criticisms that are being launched at ed demarco at fhfa.

he has a duty. if congress writes a law that says he is a conservator, they can do principal productions even if they reduce taxpayer losses, he will do so. why did is going on here is that they are pressuring him to do so without writing such a law because they are fearful of the types of responses they will get from constituents. this is a discussion we should be having on this dialogue about future of housing finance in this country. yet, instead, we beat up the regulators try to do their job to increase the possibility of losses for the taxpayer in an election year. it is pretty clear what is going on here. why can we not have an honest dialogue about housing policy, housing finance policy, in this country?

it is so important. you want to subsidize housing, which is a perfectly wonderful idea, if you do want to do that, then talk about it. have them agree or disagree. but most of us agree that we want to subsidize housing, then put it on the balance sheet of the united states of america. do not deliver it through some subsidy to go through fannie mae and freddie mac so that the executives can extract some of that subsidy, and that was how it was working up to the conservatorship. we're looking at $183 billion in losses. that is not the appropriate way to deliver a housing subsidy. my concern is that we are not having this discussion. our leaders are silent.

they're trying to maneuver in the background so they can push for principal writedowns to make these constituents happy. host: cleveland is next on the democratic line. caller: how are you doing today? can you hear me? ms. morgenson, i am wondering about truth in lending laws. i am wondering why this law has not been used to arrest those who violated it. the reason why i say that it has been violated is because people who had good credit were put into subprime loans and that shows that it was all a scam.

it has decimated the black community, minority communities across the country. what is going on with that. -- what is going on with that? guest: you are right. is a law that was on the books and i referred to it earlier saying that we have laws that could have enforced but chose not to. the perfect example, the truth in lending act. as a lender, you are supposed to deliver this to the bar were all the facts and figures about what your mortgage will be like. these were used regularly people -- where people found that it was an adjustable-rate mortgage that found an exploding mortgage rate after three years. a perfect example of the regulations we had in place that had not been enforced.

this is, again, part of the regulatory failure that is a part of the crisis. i agree 100%. part of the decimation of the community, this is one of the major paradoxes in the crisis, because these for the people we were trying to help become homeowners. how is it that these other ones that have been hurt so much and it's about the by this crisis? that is something the government should really examine and do some soul-searching about. it's very disturbing. host: new jersey, john. good morning. caller: quickly, what you're saying makes sense but the bottom line is this -- politicians were in bed with

fannie and freddie mac. mr. frank and others involved with the program are now trying to demonize people they were telling to make the loans. the problem of going forward with any type prosecution is that if you look at where it actually came from, it is the politicians that were pulling -- pushing them to make these loans. they're the ones that should be held criminally liable as well as ever won from the top down. there will never be a prosecution because they are the ones who caused the problem. it is our government. there are so many tentacles that it's ridiculous. i appreciate your time. guest: i think that is one of the elements involved. i would agree with that. i know your point of view is mirrored and reflected everywhere across the nation because i hear from a lot of people in my in box, letters,

phone messages, all saying the exact same thing. the reason we have not seen an investigation is because some of the very are all people involved would not want to investigate themselves essentially. again, i think this is leading to a real undermining of the trust that we have in this country, our government leaders and the lending institutions. it is very difficult to come out from that mistrust want to have gone down that road. very difficult to earn the trust back. there is this sense across the land of the reason we're not seeing more prosecutions is because of the nature and involvement of people at the very highest level, both in government and private sector. it was a joint effort to be sure.

host: on twitter, he asks if he is correct in the perception that dodd-frank is a complete and total joke. guest: it does nothing about the very largest issues in this crisis. it was silent on fannie mae and freddie mac. it basically just punted , on that situation, obviously a big piece of the crisis. it does very little to nothing about the two big to fail institutions. -- about too big to fail. they have this authority that will come in and solve troubled institutions supposedly, but it does nothing about cutting banks' down to a more manageable size and cutting off activities

that produce conflict and put customers at peril. it does not tackle some of the biggest issues. there is some good in the law. one of the major problems now is that the regulators who were tasked with writing the rules to meet the requirements of dodd- frank are being lobbied strenuously by the financial institutions to have a distinct interest in the outcome. they're relegated the rule writing to regulators, but it essentially gave lobbyists two bites at the apple, one during the legislative period and again when legislators are writing the rules. it is really creating a lobbying frenzy. a lot of these rules are being held up and are not being written because of these practices. host: two quick last calls for.

in florida -- for gretchen morgenson. florida. caller: ended up think your guest is going back far enough. it think it goes back further in the clinton administration. i think it goes back to the community reinvestment act. there were virtually putting a gun to the head of the banks to make loans. why did they want the loans made for people to get in the homes? those were the thunders. there really did not give a damn thing could afford it or not. that is my first point read the second point i want to make is that there is a massive problem growing in the legal aspect of these foreclosures. when i talk to my bank, they

only refer to themselves as "servicers." fannie only reversed themselves as "investors." i want to speak to my mortga gee, the holder of the promissory note. that person will not come out behind the curtain. the courts are beginning to realize that the mortgagee is either unavailable or confidential and that cannot stand. host: gretchen morgenson, for the back to the community reinvestment act? -- further back in time? guest: the cra was not the mover of this crisis. that had been on the books for many years before this really rampant.

i do not think cra is the germ of this problem. it was more about the 1990 proxy understanding that fannie could tell what the regulator and -- 1990's and fannie could co-op the regulators while wrapping themselves up in the american flag of homeownership when wall street came up and took over. host: to jump in, you mentioned president clinton a few times. we have a lot of people tweeting that president bush continued and expanded the home ownership policy. "only 3% of all loans were subprime under clinton. 50% under bush." guest: that was the beginning,

absolutely. bush picked up the ball and ran with it. this was a bipartisan effort. absolutely correct. host: final call from cleveland. can you make it short, please? caller: thank you for taking my call. the people were brainwashed into thinking they would make money as the value of the house went up. i'm 77 years old. i do not want to the value of my house to go up because i have to pay more taxes. that is what the governments want -- more taxes, more taxes. when i die, no matter what the value of my house is, i will not collect one penny. everyone on my street that has passed away does not collect one penny regardless of whether your house is worth $10 or $10

million. this is a brainwashing job. host: i will stop you there. closing comments from gretchen morgenson. guest: this was a media defined by the idea that housing prices would only go up. older people have a very little interest in seeing the price of their home go up unless they're going to sell them. you're going to die in your property, you do not care. everyone else was in the game and very interested. it was cocktail party chatter. we learned our lesson and i hope that we can really avoid such incidents coming down the pipe again. host: gretchen morgenson's column this week was on ed demarco, the basis for our discussion this morning about fannie and freddie and still available on "the new york times" website. her new book, "reckless

endangerment." gretchen morgenson joining us for our studios in new york city this morning, thank you for talking to our audience. guest: any time, susan. host: in the final segment this morning, looking at what america was like 70 years ago. the census bureau is about to release the 1940 census numbers. we will look at those as they wait to see how much we have changed in the last 70 years. we will be right back. >> followed the c-span local

content vehicle throughout the weekend as the tv and american history tv explore the culture of little rock, arkansas. saturday starting on at noon eastern on book tv, the little- known riots and killings of at least 20 african-american sharecroppers. >> there were calls going all up and down the mississippi delta saying that blacks were now in revolt. the next morning, between 600- 1000 white man pour into philips county to begin shooting down the blacks. >> and on american history tv on c-span3, sunday at 5:00 p.m., on immigration in the north little rock high school. >> we did not know what was going happen. we had only realized what was

going to happen once we got over those steps. the crowd was with us now. the momentum was behind us. they were pushing us up the steps. >> these and others from the c- span local content vehicle in little rock on c-span 2 and 3. >> starting sunday, see the winners of the studentcam documentary competition as metal and high-school students showed which part of the constitution was important to them and why. we err the top videos at 6:50 a.m. eastern on c-span. for a preview of the winning videos, studentcam.org. >> in march 1979, c-span began televising the u.s. house of representatives. today, are content to politics and public affairs, non-fiction

books, and american history is available on tv, radio, and online. >> i asked admiral poindexter directly, does the president know? he told me he did not. on november 25th, the day i was reassigned back to the united states marine corps for service, the president of united states called me. in the course of that call, the president said to me words to the effect, "i just did not know." those are the facts as i know them. i was glad when you introduce this you said you wanted to hear the truth. i came here to tell you the truth. the good, the bad, and the ugly. i'm here to tell at all, the pleasant and unpleasant. i'm here to expect -- except

responsibility for that which i did. i will not accept responsibility for that which i did not do. >> c-span, treated by america's cable companies as a public service. -- created by america's cable companies. host: this is the front page of the census department website. they have a big promotion to date for the impending april 2nd release of the 1940 census. getting a preview of that in "usa today," on 3a, the census data opens 81 1940. why is this such a big deal? guest: host: -- guest: this will reflect how we have changed. this is the first time misinformation will be available in digital form from the archives. host: what is the significance

of that? guest: report was only available on microfilm. -- before it was only available on microfilm. now you can look at it directly from your computer and access the archives home page. host: the reason to look at these numbers from 70 years ago is to see what we are like and how we have changed. 18-39 uses this number -- over 40 -- 202-737-0002. we want your thoughts on the most important ways that our country has change does look at the statistics that will show that picture during the segment. we have a lot of numbers from the census bureau looking at 1940 america compared to 2010 america. we have a genealogist on the

national archive record administration. what an interesting job you have. what do you do? guest: the staff helps people find the records they need for genealogy. military records, immigration records, census records, land records. you just need to know your family's connection to the federal government and we can get started. host: how significant is your work? how is this really is going to affect your work? guest: it will be readily available at the national archives facility. it will be indexed probably in eight or nine months so that people can search for names. it gives you an idea of where your family was, what they're doing near the end of the

depression and before the war. host: when people look at these numbers, what will they be able to see? guest: they can see the information that we actually gathered in the 1940 census. it was done by enumerators. we had 120,000 enumerators that went door-to-door and actually wrote the information down for every individual in the household. typically, they captured about 80 individuals on the front and back of a very large as scheduled. there is information on race, age, sex, gender, and a whole host. host: since there were not computers back then, when the data came in, what was the process? guest: we use the data capture cards. they were put on computer cards by data transcriber is and the

schedules were transcribed on to them. host: little one we will show some of the old census forms. -- later on, we will show the old census forms. here is a look at this. what has happened to the growth in population? guest: in 1940, we were 130.2 million. 70 years later, it had grown to 308.7 million. an increase of 138%. we have had steady growth. there was a 7.3% increase in population from 1930-1940. the population changed from 2000-2010 which was the second smallest in 70 years. host: it is significant to look

at your projections. talk to us about those. guest: we also have a population projection program which is the data that you see for 2020-2015. we are projecting a population of 439 million by the year 2050. guest: to tell us what kind of role immigration has played over the years? -- host: can you tell us what role immigration has played? guest: 1 question is where you lived april 1st, 1935, and where you lived april 1st, 1940, has information about immigration. immigration up until world war i had significant growth and that is reflected in the questions

the census asked. in 1920's, they asked when you were naturalized. this time they asked if you're a citizen, alien, if you had filed for papers. your answer depends if your father was an american citizen before may 24th, 1934. after that, if either parent was an american citizen. what i love about the census is they do reflect what has happened a decade before. it is a great history book on what has been going on in the united states. host: we were looking at the overall growth of the country. this set of numbers will really resonate. this shows the population changes by regions over the 70 years. explosive growth. guest: this is quite a striking

chart. you can see the northeast grew 54%. the midwest grew 67%. you see significant growth in the south, 175%. and 400% in the west. s the largestd population both in 1940 and 2010. host: the west had small numbers of people to begin with 70 years ago, so its percentages reflecting. guest: and 14-- they had 14.4 million in 1940. host: explain this chart. guest: this shows the population that resided in the four

regions in 1940 and then in 2010. 27% of the population lived in the northeast which has been decreased to 17.9%. in the midwest, they also had a decrease over the 70-year period, while tehe west had an increase up to 37.1% in 2010. you see a doubling of the percentage in the west. take some calls. we have divided the lines by age group. your questions about the changes in the u.s. of the next 70 years. washington, indiana, 57. welcome, joe. caller: good morning. this is really interesting.

my grandfather and his children stayed in this area. it has so many questions in that. i was disappointed in the last census. this one have the mother and father. age at last birthday, date of birthday, number of children, how many still living, place of birth, place of birth of father -- host: what is your concern? caller: is tremendous that this is coming out. i look forward to it. i wish they had more information on the last one where the people were coming along for the future. it's fantastic for me to look at

all of these people in the farm country and the number of people that could speak, read, and write english was tremendous. host: looking at old census forms. we will put this on the screen right now. this is the 1940 census form. you see how big it is. the caller was talking about the kind of information gathered. do people in your debt to influence the questions asked by the senses to help future genealogists? guest: no, we do not. host: do you wish you did? guest: i'd rather not. host: why not? guest: there are so many different questions you can ask. some of the to ask

questions to determine the population scandals. the census only has so many questions they can ask and they need it the most information they can out of those questions. on the 1940 census, there were 13 questions about the labour force which was very important because of the depression. host: thomas mesenbourg, that caller lamented some of the questions that asked anymore, but how you decide what is important one decade? guest: in 1940, there was an interagency group put together that advised us on what content we should collect. there had been huge changes from the 1930 census to the 1940. we were in the depression. there were a number of new items added to the 1940 census including the first question on the wages and salary.

this was also the first census that actually did a census of housing. there were 31 questions that reflected detailed information about each of the housing structures in the census. host: whether they owned a home or rented? guest: and there is information about what their rent payment was, mortgage interest, suggest a wealth of information. host: and really links back to what we talked about with homeownership. guest: especially original schedules that survived. it is just fascinating. host: let's take a look at american cities and how many cities in this country 70 years ago had 500,000 or more. san fransisco, los angeles, baltimore, washington, but not really that very many. but you can see the black dots of the largest cities.

70 years later, now look. do these mirror the growth we have looked at in the region? guest: in 1940, we had 14 cities and now we have 33. four cities dropped off the list, buffalo, pittsburgh, cleveland, and st. louis. but a whole host were added in the south and west. host: who dropped? guest: buffalo, pittsburgh, cleveland, and st. louis. host: next caller. russ, you are on the air? moving on to new albany, ohio. caller: good morning.

i was talking to my sister the other day and she has been tracing your family history. i'm african-american. can you hear me? american and is very hard for us to trace our roots. she is telling me just the other day that she was waiting for the census to come out. i wish you would elaborate for this. it we have been able to find family members to sweden, not africa yet, but sweden, and people that are british. i am as dark as sydney point today. and my mother is as light as lawn and turner. -- i am as dark as sydney

portier. there's a lot of information on their detractor family in the census. host: how often is census information released? guest: 1940 was the first time that we released the 1870's census and all of the earlier ones. we provided the data to the national archives. in 1952, we formalize the agreement with the archives to release the 1880 census. every 10 years since then, a 72- year period releases. host: every 10 years, we look back 72 years. it is that a 70 year wait for

information. guest: it is a 70-year gap. host: but no information comes out every 10 years. -- but new information comes out every 10. , the talk about raising your roots as a black american are african-american. how does this change the distribution by race? guest: you can see the u.s. was predominantly a white nation, almost 90% of the population. 9.8% black and a very small difference in seven other race categories. now you can see the white population accounts for 72% of the population and the categories for the five graces' accounts for almost 28%.

host: in the black population specifically, it has stayed steady as a percentage. 1970, 11%. what is growing are the other minority groups. guest: the asian community has grown significantly. host: and of course the hispanics. guest: hispanics are not treated as a raise. they would have showed up in the white category in 1940. we did separately identify them starting in the 1970 census. host: let's show that. here is the 1970-2010 looking at the hispanic population growth. guest: that's correct. the total population, 4.5% were hispanic or latino. it had grown to 16% in 2010 and

the accountant for over 50 million residents. host: 8 question, connie potter, for black americans trying to trace their roots. host:-- guest: theoretically everyone is supposed to be in the census. there is always someone missed. that was following the civil war and emancipation. as of monday, 1870-1940 is a good place to check. the did850's and 1860's not list the name of the slaves. it lists the slave owner and then "one black male" and then the age. there is that a great deal of personal information.

a great place to check is the civil war if you had someone that fought in the colored troops. host: next caller, annie, 64. caller: i was wondering about slavery. slaveher's father was a child. i found some of the records in the 1870-something was he, his wife, and about five or six kids. my grandmother had 22 kids. then they all died off later. when i was trying to figure out, because when i found them, they were all living in mississippi, but nobody seemed to know where my grandfather came from before he got to mississippi. we're trying to figure out what

kind -- what part of africa. a lot of the birth certificates say ethiopia. guest: it can be difficult. during slavery, many of the records are records of the slave owners and they had to survive many things including the civil war. the best place would be the state archives in the state where the family lived. host: off of twitter, was religious affiliation collected? if not, when was the last time? guest: it was not collected in the 1940 census. i do not recall us ever collecting religious affiliation. host: our next caller is 23, but before that i want to look at

how our country is aging. here is an age distribution chart from 1940-2010. guest: we were a much younger nation in 1940 with about 31% of the population under 18 years of age. just about 20% here. this has really changed. this is directly related to the baby boom generation. this is the baby boom generation, but i think it is quite striking to see the 65 + category has almost doubled over those 70 years and it will continue to grow as baby boomers age. host: satellite beach, fla., 23

years old. you have a question or comment about our changing country? matthew? caller: can you hear me? ok. sorry. i was just wondering if there was any data about a polling of the census. there was a lot of politics. there was talk about how much money was spent to do it. was it viewed as more patriotic? i just remembered what happened in 2010. is there data on how it was viewed at the time? host: i have some photos of historic census taking. here is one from cleveland as we hear from mr. mesenbourg.

guest: a do not believe there was a huge controversy over the 1940 census. sampling was a new methodology first really developed in the 1930's. the 1940 census was unique. it was the first decennial census where we sampled the individuals and 5% of the individuals were asked a supplementary question hairs. as massie mentioned, in 2010, we expended significant resources on advertising and promotion. one thing we can all say in the survey business is that our job has become a lot more difficult over the intervening years in getting the american public to participate which continues to be a challenge. host: here is another great

photographs. cleveland state university employees at the census headquarters preparing forms for the census. a lot of people power and not a lot of computer power. guest: in the movies, there were women doing data entry. you could look at the occupation codes and they were just typing away. it was not all manual labor. guest: to add to that, we did use these punch cards. it is quite noteworthy that the first ones were available in august, 1940. it was quite timely. host: coming out of the depression, there's a lot of interesting photographs. here is one from a family having the census data collected

outside of their home in a real car. were you able to capture some of that post-depression era in the types of places that people were living? guest: that was one challenge in the 1940 census, the transient population. be designated two days, april 7th and eighth, to actually measure the transient population. people went to camp site, railroad cars, and the enumerators captured the data. that continues to be a challenge to enumerate the transient portions of the population. guest: there listed on the census on page 81. there were caught one day or two later, but many of these have the transient population

starting on page 81. host: here is another look at how the country is aging. the median age of the country has changed and will continue to change until 2050. why is there a difference in 1970? guest: that would reflect the baby boomers. the 1940 proxy is noteworthy in that it is the last decade where the median age of males exceeded that of a female. then you see a continual gap growing. it was quite striking is booking at the population as a whole in 1940. the median age was 29. and now it is 37.2. host: frank from cambridge, mass. caller: i noticed your graph of the total population growth.

at a glance, it just looks like a straight line. i started looking more closely and it seems to resemble a very gentle parabola in the fourth squadron. it reminds me of a book written 40 years ago by a professor in stamford. population grows faster than incrementally, or something like that, where you have a point in time where the earth cannot support that many people. i am from an area in cambridge, which i am told is the most densely populated area in the country. that may be an exaggeration, but nonetheless it has become a real

problem, i think, in controlling the population. i am interested in more of the social aspects of how these things affect people. personally, i will not be around when all this stuff hits the fan. i know think tanks are thinking about these issues. in a nation like china, you can only have one child. host: what about the social implications of population growth? guest: from 2000-2010, it was the smallest growth rate since 1930-1940 which had an increase of 9.7%. our population is not growing in

an uncontrolled manner over the decade. there are clearly a lot of implications, as our economy changes, as our nation changes come associate demographic characteristics that were much more -- socio-demographic characteristics. host: a question for you, connie potter, do the mormons have good genealogical records? guest: they do. state, local, county, and international records. host: these next series of slides is a wow set of numbers. the average household size. in 1940, 3.7 people. in 2010, 2.6.

guest: that was accounted for by a huge growth in single person households. host: one person in? look at the change in this. guest: 8% of the population included in a single person in 1940. in 2010, 27% which included two categories, the youth living alone and also the aging population that may be living alone. host: the flipside is the amount of family household. what is the definition? guest: a household where all the members are related. host: and that was 90% down to 66%. next, a call from pittsburgh,

82. you have seen a lot of change. what is your comment or question? caller: i have. one thing that interests me is the number of african-americans that migrated from the south to the north during this time. at understand there were several millions. the biggest change in my life was the coming of integration. this was really a benefit to blacks. we no longer had to sit in the back of the bus or ride in the front of the train, not be allowed to eat in restaurants. we could stay in hotels. we could go to decent schools. we could serve integrated in the u.s. military. last but not least, we could get decent jobs. in my lifetime, i think this was

a very great change. host: when we looked earlier in the growth in regions, if we dug down more deeply into the census numbers from the great migration, would we be able to track matt? guest: you could track down by category. you could get it by age group, race category. then in the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, the primary categories were white and black. and in the 1970's you can start to look at the hispanic portion of the population as well. host: and this is a question about black americans chasing their roots. during the great migration, so many families were displaced. they're removing the places in the north. what happened to genealogical records in the migration talk? guest: if you look at the south in 1938-1940, very few people

were moving in. if you look at places like new york, chicago, you do see a lot more people. you'll find people from different parts of the country in the world. there are good resources on the census bureau website and have statistics based on race and gender, race and then come -- race and income. you can look at it almost any way. that is a good way to see how things change. i was looking at military sites in the panama canal zone and it is obviously segregated. i would like to look at that again in 1950 because i think we will see that change. host: time is running out so we will try to get more calls.

we are less married as a nation. guest: that is true. we had a huge increase in the number of the divorce rate. in 1940, 1% of males 15 or older had been divorced. that has increased tenfold by 2010. for women, the divorce rate went from 2% in 1940 up to 12% in 2010. host: there is so much good stuff here. another change is how we work, the percent of employed people. the way we work has changed enormously. guest: it reflects the growing industrialization of the united states. 23% of employed people worked in manufacturing, now down to 10%.

agriculture was a huge employer, a 21% of the population in 1940 which is now down to 2%. host: that is quite a jump. guest: we have a huge increase in services. many of these industries did not even exist in 1940 including internet, broadcasting. host: time has run out. aprilata will be released 2nd. thank you for the preview. we may have whetted appetites about finding their families. how can they get started? host: 1940census.archives.gov. host: how can people be able to search? guest: it is not name indexed,

but it is enumeration district, state, county. how you can find your enumeration is set. then you can get started. host: there are a lot more charts and graphs available. census.gov beginning april 2nd. thank you to our guests. have a great weekend. thank you for being with us. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪

>> president barack obama is raising campaign cash in vermont and maine today. he has two events in burlington, vt. this afternoon, speaking at a small lunch for supporters and a large rally at the university of vermont and we will have live coverage of that rally at 2:35 eastern. the president will then travel to portland, maine for a fund- raiser dinner and returns to the white house tonight. former president bill clinton hosted a discussion this evening. he will be joined by madeleine albright in that discussion along with singer usher is part of the obama global initiatives taking place of george washington university and our coverage starts a 7:30 eastern. budget committee chairman paul ryan is endorsing mitt romney for the republican presidential nominee. he becomes the 93rd member of congress to endorse mitt romney.

congressman ryan is the author of the house republican budget that proposes to cut the federal spending and change the tax structure and revise medicare. if the house passed yesterday and wisconsin republicans spoke about the budget yesterday at a national drama form. here is a look -- >> it is not an insidious plan by one party over the other. it is just demographics and health inflation. both parties and it promises to people that the government cannot keep. the gao says it is about 100 trillion dollars -- $100 trillion. the sooner we acknowledge that, the better off we will be and the more we can convert these empty promises into real promises instead of broken

promises. the two words you hear our balance and medicare as we know it. the medicare charge was the light of the year 2000. -- the lie of the year 2000. for people who are younger, 54 and below, convert to a system of support much like with the thomas and bro frisk commission. you get a list of guaranteed coverage options. you can not be denied. there is a competitive bidding system that makes sure that your benefit keeps up with the price of the insurance. you also have the choice of traditional medicare fee-for- service along said that an medicare subsidizes your premium based on who you are. if you are low income, 100%. the wealthy person gets a much

lower subsidy because we think that is right. doing it this way, using choice and competition, having premium support with competitive bidding guarantees affordability and solvency to the medicare program and allows us to give the current commitment to seniors. it is gradual so you don't end up with a debt crisis where you have severe disruptions in people's lives because medicare is the biggest driver of our debt. if you solve the medicare puzzle, you dramatically improve your chances of averting a debt crisis. people say you need a balanced approach. the problem is spending. our government spending is a percentage of our economy at 24%. it has starkly -- it has historically been at 20%. by the time my kids are my age, the size of our government does from 20% -40% of the economy.

they tried to keep up with the revenues that will crash the economy. the spending is the problem. if we try to chase this higher spending line with revenues, you'll end up shutting down the american dream, the american economy, and you will consign the next generation to inferior standard of living. we said we have to keep their mind and economic growth and if we keep raising tax rates and keep narrowing the base, we will hurt job creators, small businesses, and we will hurt the economy which will suffer. let's focus on maximizing economic growth and getting more revenues in the federal government, economic competitiveness, and we think that is a smarter way to go because the best way to get out of this mess we are in his economic growth, spending cuts, and the entitlement reforms. that is balanced. if we define balance as to keep raising tax rates and do not do with the drivers of our debt,

these entitlements will never balance the budget and we will never get the debt under control and we will ruin the economy in the meantime. [no audio] >> you can see the entire session with house budget committee chairman paul ryan at sunday at 12:30 p.m. eastern and it is available man at c- span.org. he is endorsing mitt romney today for the republican presidential nominee and appearing with him tonight on the sean hannity fox tv program. >> policy spends local content vehicle throughout the weekend as book-tv and american history to be exported history of literary culture of little rock, arkansas saturday starting at noon eastern on book-tv on c- span 2. >> you had calls going up and

down the mississippi delta saying that blacks were now in revolt. the next morning, between 601,000 men, white man, poured into phillips county -- 600 and 1,00 poured into phillips county to shoot blacks. >> it is as if they knew what was gonna happen but we did not know was going to happen. we don't realize what will happen when they go up those steps that they seem to because the crowd is with us now. the momentum is behind us. they are pushing us up the steps. >> these stories and others from the local content vehicles in little rock this weekend on c- span 2 and 3. >> there was an all-day forum

yesterday in washington, d.c. that focused on issues important to women in the 2012 election including women's reproductive rights and a review of ballot measures affecting women. the speakers include representatives from planned parenthood and the national organization for women. this 50-minute event contains language some may find offensive. >> we want to keep the ball rolling but we want to give a big hand to this panel on ballot initiatives. [applause] we have our work cut out for us.

are we at another a need to hell moment. hill moment? if you are not familiar with rutgers university website, please go to it. it is cawp.org. all i have to do is put cawp. the official thing is cawp. rutgers.edu.

basically it is a marvelous instrument. it has all the facts really about women in office. it tells you how many women are in the state legislatures, who they are and it tells you by state it does all the point of offices, it does it by state. it does the history of all the women in congress. it is a bible. dubie walz can set the stage from how we get to 17% or get more women in power and stop this constant discussion of how we fight off going forward one step in coming backwards another step as we have kept on doing

for to a nearly 40 years. i want you to set the stage. i want to command the center for american women in politics and the eagleton institute. the eagleton institute is headed by ruth mandell who is an absolute treasure for the women's movement also for the united states because they feature local and state politics which are so often overlooked. if we are going to do this, we have to be at all levels. please, set the stage and keep us running on time. [laughter] [applause] >> that is a tall order. i want to thank you and i want to thank alice and kathy for having me here. we were really lucky. a couple of years ago, we broughtellie to rutgers university where we gave her an honorary degree and she was the commencement speaker. [applause] we are delighted to counter as

an alum of rutgers university. i will put this year into an historical context. i want to talk about the numbers of women who are in office and running for office. we keep track of all of these and we monitor the trends for women in office. pre-1992, we saw this slow, steady growth for women in elective office and used to be known that because we would only go up about one percentage point every election cycle. there was very little in every congressional cycle. then came 1992 and we have been talking about this. it is 20 years ago and we sought a year of redistricting. we sought a year where there is a record number of open seats and we saw a year with there was a catalyzing moment when everyone in this country saw firsthand how white and how mail the united states congress and in particular the united states

senate was. i know many of the u.s. does remember the weekend where we sat and watched all weekend long never leaving our tv sets as we watched anita hill facing down that all male, all white senate judiciary committee and all had that moment that these guys don't get it and where are the women? as a result of that year, when we had a record numbers of open seats, we had what was then called the year of the woman. i cordially, that was the last year we had. in that year, we saw a 24 new women elected to congress. we had never seen anything like that before. we have never, i'm sad to say, seen anything like it since. we saw women running at that point for 39 open seats. that is the most open seats women have ever run for at one time in the general election.

keep that number in the back of your head because open seats are critical. open seats are where you make change from the incumbent winning 95% of the time, men and women. it is critical we find women to run in open seats. after 1992, when we saw this spike, ever since then we have been basically flat line at the state legislative level. we have seen almost no increase in the number of women who are running for state legislatures and relatively no increase the number of women serving in state legislatures from about 1994- now, we have gone from about 22% - 24%. what happens out there is we see these big famous names like nancy pelosi and you see hillary clinton and you see michelle bachmann and use the condoleezza rice and people think it is mission accomplished.

the reality is we're talking about 17% in congress, 24% in state legislatures. of all the governors in this country, only six women. that is down from the record. we have been going down in statewide elective office. we see this flat lining. we sort of ask what we can do. we look at the year 2012 and we said this is another year of opportunity. we thought about this at the center and with our partner mary hughes in california and we have been working on the 2012 project to take advantage of 2012. this is a redistricting year once again after the census. every state legislative line, every congressional district is redrawn making incumbents less entrenched because their

districts and constituents are different. we have more retirements than normally say. we see some similarities there. it is also a presidential election. we only get that every 20 years. in presidential election years, we see more voters and voters that are less tied to their party. they are vocational voters. they don't vote district party line. it makes it a bit of a benefit for newcomers. unfortunately, women are still newcomers. what we have been doing is going around the country, trying to engage and inspire more women to run in 2012. what we were missing in this cycle and what we had in 1992, is that galvanizing moment. i think that is a little of what we have started to see now. we have to keep going.

we saw what happened when women came before -- when they tried to speak at the house hearings and women's access to health care was being restricted, women's access to contraception was being restricted, and it is making people mad. i don't know if you are following this, what is happening in the state legislatures across the country. all around the country, we are seeing a horrible legislation but we are seeing women legislators using the platform that they have to speak out. i want to read you a couple of the pieces -- if you can hand me that folder -- we've got some great legislation that women are putting forward around the country. it is not that they expected necessarily to pass but they want to show what is going on

and use their voice. this is why we need more women in office. in virginia, senator janet howell proposed legislation mandating rectal exams and cardiac stress tests for man sitting erectile dysfunction meds. [applause] in georgia, we saw a representative yasmin neal outlining most accessed amazed because they leave thousands of children deprived of birth. -- outlining most of vasectomies because they leave dozens of children deprived of birth. men would be compelled to get psychological screenings before getting prescriptions for impotence meds. "we must advocate for the traditional family and insure that all men using inhibitors are healthy, stable, and

educated about their options including celibacy as a viabl light choice. -- the bible like joyce." >> in illinois, state representative kelly cass city proposed requiring men seeking viagra to watch a video showing the treatment for persistent erections end -- and occasional side effects. she explained it is not a pretty procedure to [laughter] watch] this is happening around the country in response to this. this is just another example of the anger that we are seeing out there. we really have to work to kind of galvanize around this issue and not let it pass and not let it go. i think there is some good news about the numbers as we move forward. so far, 24 states have had their filing deadlines. these numbers are still very

preliminary. there are 26 or 27 states left to go here. we need to make sure that we are monitoring desperate right now, we have 37 women who are filing are planning to file right now for the united states senate. [applause] at this time -- the record was set back in 2010 with 36. if all of these women actually file, we will have beat the record but only by one. at this point in the cycle, the same number of states have been filed, in 2008, we have 11 women and in 2010, we had 28 women. we are ahead of the game at the u.s. senate level. this is where we want to watch this is the united states house. right now, we have a total of 270 women who are considering filing or have filed for the united states house of representatives. at this point back in 2010, we

had 227 women and in 2008, we had 184. the ultimate record was set in 2010 with 262 women. we are ahead of the game but we are really ahead of the game in what i consider the most important kind of race that women can be in and that goes back to those open seats. remember what i said about 1992, the year of the woman but also the year of the open seat. right now, women are either filed or say they are planning to file for open seats, 70 women are planning to run for open seat races in the united states house. back in 2008 at this point, only 32 women were saying they were filing for open seats and in 2010, 37. this is the number to watch. this is what we have to keep our eye on. we have been looking at this in the 2012 project at the center

for american women in politics for about two years. we have been talking to women all over this country, women who are engineers and scientists and in business and finance, organizations of women of color, leaders in the nonprofit community and we say to them now is the time. why not you, why not now run for office? this is the payoff is the increase in the number of women who are saying they will run. i think we have a galvanizing issue where we are seeing the difference women can make. we are seeing what happens when women's voices are not at the table. there is that great line -- if you are not at the table, you are probably at -- on the menu. we need to make sure we are all at the table. as i looked out on this room and the folks watching this on c- span, if you are in one of those states where there have not been finalized, i hope you will consider running for office or

that where there is an open seat or it vulnerable incumbent, you will identify a woman who you know who could run. that is what we need to do. if you were in a state or the filing deadlines have passed, find a woman, go to our website, we keep track of all the women running for office to run the country and find a woman who was running and support her. if it is not somebody your state, finder in another state. we need to get more women elected. our tagline for the 2012 project has been "don't get mad, get elected." i think that is absolutely true. [applause] if it is not going to be getting you elected right now in 2012, maybe in 2014 or 2016, don't get mad, get a woman elected. thank you very much and i hope that sets the stage for you quickly. [applause] >> i knew that she could do it.

she has all those numbers and figures at your fingertips. did you have the deadlines under website? >> all filing deadlines are on our website. we have an election tracker. if the go to the cobweb site or the 2012 project.us, we have the election tracker and we have all the filing deadlines for each of the states. we have links to each states and the women running for congress and as soon as the state legislative elections are held, the primaries, we will have the women who are running for the state legislature post-primary. >> great, ok, you set the stage and dr. efay wins is our next speaker. the national congress of black women which i think began 28 years ago and its mission has been to encourage more african-

american women and more women of color to run. all the data that you hear on women as a whole, as you know, the underrepresentation of women of color is even worse. they have also broadened its their mission. they do other things besides this. dr. williams has done a mission impossible. she isn't -- has not only taken after -- taken over after delores tucker but she has run for congress. she did not take an easy site. she ran for congress from louisiana and that was quite something because you only lost, i think, by 500 votes? /10 6 of 110 during/10 of 1%. 6/10 of 1%.

[applause] she encourages us to fight for our women's rights, civil rights, and wherever there is a social justice caused, she is they're fighting for all of us. efay? [applause] >> thank you, eliie. does anybody not understand there is a war against women t? the first shot was fired by the far right but let me tell you it is not who fires the first shot, is the one still standing when the war is over. we women plan to be still standing. [applause] so journal truth, a woman whose moral we have the honor of placing in the united states capitol making her the first african-american woman standing there with a permanent memorial, she said that if the first woman could turn this world

upside down, surely, all of us together can turn right side up again and we intend to do just that because we are on the same page. we talked about fighting for issues that are issues of all people, not just what we consider our personal issues because the time comes when we need to unite and we want somebody to help us with what we consider our issue. you have heard about the young minister who was there and said i said nothing because i was not involved. then they came for me. there was no one left to be involved. we must form our coalitions. we must collaborate on those issues that are all of ours. we must begin to learn how one issue impacts of the other. we are not playing football, i

understand that and i have attended all whole bunch of football schools. sometimes i think some of those people out there working against our best interests believe that indeed women are a football field and they can just formed the littlet-formations and say one thing and do another. we are ready because we are on the same team and we women understand what teamwork means. it used to mean that we did everything. each of us has our role to play and that's what makes us stronger because when we collaborate, we can make everything that we do mean something. if you want to eliminate once and for all pre existing circumstances and conditions like being a woman, then we are on the same team.

if you want to ensure equal pay for equal work, then we are on the same. team. if you want to make sure that your child can stay on your health plan until they're 26, yes, we are on the same team. yes, if you want to have access to affordable health care and what everybody else to have it, then we are on the same team. if you want to preserve social security as we know it, we are on the same team. if you are one of the 99% or care about the 99%, then we are on the same team. if you want to see more women like nancy pelosi and amy klobuchar and carolyn maloney and barbara mikulski and all of these wonderful women, then we

are on the same team. if you want to see another shirley chisholm rise - [applause] we are on the same team. if you want to let more women serve on the supreme court like elena kagan and sonia sotomayor, then we are on the same team. if you want to see more women like hillary clinton as the secretary of state, then we are >> on the same team. >> if we want to say more racial mad as ra --chel maddows on television than we are. if you want a fair packed in your lifetime we are -- >> on the same team. >> if you want to see the tea party disappear -- >> we are on the same to. >> if you want to rate the 51%

you heard about this morning in the united states congress, then we are -- >> on the same team. >> if we want a congress that is responsive to our needs, then we are rigid >> on the same team. >> if you want to keep title 9, then we are -- >> are on the same team of them are on the same team. if you want equal rights amendment ever to happen, we are -- >> on the same to. >> if you want to put down divisiveness and sexism and put down homophobia and put down racism and you want to put down taking action against people and not giving them their opportunities who have physical or mental disabilities, then we are -- >> on the same team. >> if you want to put a dent in ignorance of people who are supposed to be educated but don't act like it, then reach >> we are on the same team.

>> we are on the same team. >if you want to experience concepts like truth and justice for all, equality for all, fairness for all, then we are on the same team. we have been through the fire, my sisters, but one thing that is clear to us is that we're not going to go back because we are on the same team. if we are on the same team, it seems to make sense that there is something we have to do. how do we do it in 2012? we cannot wait, as dr. martin luther king jr. said, we cannot wait, it is time to do it now. we cannot just get mad because as dick gregory says, when we get angry, plain old angkor can consume and destroy us. if we are on the same team, there is some things we must do

immediately. we cannot just get mad at old tricky rikki. we cannot get mad at the other people in the race. you know they are. everything that they said is something we've got to listen to because somehow it is connected to preventing women from doing something. it is against our interests. some of the poverty things you have heard -- instead of getting to is planned all angry, every time somebody comes on and says something crazy, go and register another friend, somebody who has not made it to register yet, somebody who did not get a chance to vote before, somebody who did not have the money to go and find that birth certificate, somebody who does not know where the court as is or where they register to vote. let's make our anchor mean

something if we are really on the same team. let's put our dollar is where our mouths are instead of pushing somebody out, let's go and spend a dollar that people like elizabeth warren or other people say we can't do that, the people who support our interests, let's make sure we do that. if you want to be on the same team with us, be sure you motivate somebody to vote who did not even planted. we want -- who did not even planned to vote. in the affordable care act, when people understand that they like it. when they are as individual if they want the pieces in that act, they then say they wanted. when you just asked them if they support the act because they have heard so much about what ever care and all the kind of stuff, the vast majority of us are concerned about our brothers

and sisters. all across this country, all across this world. we cannot do it if we don't have a congress there. we need a senate one of these days before long where 51% means something. right now, they can get 51% and they still lead not done anything. since we are 51%, let's make the senate mean something for us, too. that is a stupid law and they have to change that. if we are silent about what is going on out there, we're told by martin luther king again that violence gives consent and surely we are not consenting to all of the things that are happening to us in this most recent war against women. again, we must collaborate now. we must stop all foolishness about being angry with somebody because they did not do one thing we wanted. we have to look at the whole picture. we have to look long range.

we have to think about who is usually there with us and who was generally there with us until we can put somebody there that is with us all a. time we women are a majority. sometimes, we act like we're just a little part of the constituency. we are the majority. we know with a majority means. we have to start acting like we are in charge. the people who are against us are not hiding. it is not difficult to find them. we just have to listen to cbs, nbc, abc and even of other station and you will find out who the real enemies are. we just have to say no, no, no, we won't go back and we have to mean it when we say it. we have to tell them we have come too far. we have suffered too much. we have struggled to much. so many of our women friends have died waiting for things to

happen while they worked. we must be with women today who are for us. we must know who those people are who are against our best interests. as i conclude, i bring to u.s. air remarkedsojourner true to said she suffered the many indignities that those indignities did not stop her because she was fighting for dignity and like many other women like susan b. anthony and others, she was fighting to gain the right for us to vote. we will not go back. there was gloria steinem, shirley chisholm, patricia ireland, terry of mail, harriet tubman, ella baker, all of these are women who have fought too many battles for us to go back. we will not go back. it is time for us to take our

own stand and stand the ground for women and insist that we will not go back for any reason. we've got to get it on monday leave this conference today. we cannot wait for the summer. we cannot wait for november. we've got to get it together now. i want you to know that it is time that we understand that each of our interests is somehow related to all of our interests. the far right may well have shot the first shot but it is the one who is still standing when the last shot is fired and women, we intend to be there because we are a. team thank you, i love you, god bless you. [applause] >> i forget faye is an ordained

minister. you can hear her voice are wringing their in indignation. we will throw open -- we have a little time, not much , a fourq &a. the reason i stopped some of the candidate stuff is we are here as a non-profit organization. basically, we want to keep it in the philosophical range especially with the eagleton institute here encouraging more women to run. for those who were not here before, we have an historic figure in our audience who might want to say something about running carol mosy braun was the first african-american u.s. senator. she is attending and we are

honored with her attendance parishes on the national advisory board of now and she ran for president of the united states. you know something about running. if you want to go to the microphone, would you? [applause] good. she likes to take hold. she is an expert on organic food. my grandson happens to have this terrible peanut allergy and she was telling us about the food processing. this woman has a lot of hats. she has been elected statewide, a times? lots.

i will never forget when you first took the floor, this might be a little-known details of why it matters when women are there -- you took the floor she haspi hern on, the first african- american woman to take the floor, and they stopped her. at the door. the sergeant at arms stopped her and said she could not enter. she said wait a minute, i just got elected. anyway, she had pants on. this was not 100 years ago. this was 1992. women were not allowed to wear a. pants do you want to tell the rest of the story or should i? this made a difference because she refused to get off the floor. she stayed on the floor and one of the reasons that women can wear pants is senator and

ambassador carol moseley braun. [applause] >> i want to thank you for this conference. this has been just a magnificent opportunity to get energized and inspired all over again. we have been calling old home week because you see so many women, some money warriors, people who have been out in the four from making the case that equality is an american value and women hold up half the sky and we are entitled to be participants in the governments of this country just as anybody else. you were making the case and all these wonderful people, i love the fact that you bring the young women into the conversation. many of them really need to know that this is not just a battle that will be over with tomorrow. it did not just start yesterday. we have to all work together, we have to be a team to make

certain that we come together and make these things happen. i will tell a quick story which is a point of personal privilege since i have the microphone. that's the last thing you want is to give a politician a microphone. [laughter] i for ellie fighting for equal rights amendment in illinois it was 19 - apartment was right across the street from the capital so it became the war room for the passage of the equal rights amendment and we took on -- this is the beginning of the other lady who began the organization who will not be mentioned. it was truly a face-off. unfortunately, ill. failed to pass the equal rights amendment. that was one of the reasons why we still don't have it. that fight continues and i think the fact that we are still talking about it, it is still important and it has to happen, our daughters deserve no less than equal rights amendment in this country. [applause]

to talk a little bit about running for office, it is no easy thing to. particularly in light of the fact that the laws have changed in terms of money. if anything, i think campaign finance reform is the new face of the civil-rights movement in this country i say that because the way the role of money is so corrupting on the process that it really is beginning to lock out a lot of voices that should be heard. it is locking out and closing doors to opportunities that typically poor women from all walks of life who might be encouraged to step forward but cannot figure out how they manage to handle the fund raising and all the money part of the process. that is really the hardest part of it. if representative democracy means anything, it ought to mean that women will have an equal voice, women will have an opportunity to participate in government and you have that

opportunity when you run for office. i want to encourage everybody here to do what you can to move not just in terms of personal contributions because that is the easy way to do it. it p is theacs, -the super pacs, to get the money out there so the candidates can be competitive. you may have the most brilliant in the world to say but if nobody can hear you say it, you don't get your message out and your chance of being elected is minimized. gatherings like this is so important for the want to thank all of you for being here and for your activism because i am encouraged and inspired foo i am doingd now and i will and with a quick food story. this is good news. two things happened in the last month -- the two big drug manufacturers, coke and pepsi, agreed with the fda to change

the formulation of their beverages because it had been determined that an ingredient they were using caused cancer. the fda was going to require that they put this product causes cancer on the tent and coke and pepsi both decided that we don't want to put in a reference to cancer on our product so guess what? we will change the formulation and take that out. that is a great victory. you saw that much of it in the news. there was an article about this today and i hope you look it up that is just as important to dobp witha which is the plan asked --bpa which is a plastic coating that they coat the inside of cans with. they found that the word of mouth got out and mothers to make purchasing decisions, women make the purchasing decisions

across the board, decided there were not going to expose their children to this packaging material that might cause cancer and any number of other elements in the children. the result now is that these companies are now dumping of this stuff like 40 going north and campbell's changed state -- announced they are changing their formulation for their soup which is a big deal. the other people who make -- no, another one. i can remember -- i can't remember. two huge companies have decided to change their formulations to get carcinogenic materials out of their packaging because the women of this country spoke up and said we will not continue to participate in poisoning our children. i think that is a great victory. i think that is a great victory

and should be inspirational to everyone here because the people in the end to have the power. people coming together and expressing consensus around an issue like that have the power to change things and to change the direction of this country and to keep this country moving in a direction that we will all be proud to leave to our children that applies whether his politics or food or any other level of activity. how we define our times and our world starts with each and every person in this room. i want to congratulate everybody here for reaching outside of yourself to make a difference and make this an america we can all be proud of, thank you. [applause] >> i just want to actually follow up with what she just said and say it is wonderful to see her because she is one of our political leaders at rutgers

university. one of the things we know about why women tend not to run for office is that they think it is an ugly place and a place where you cannot get things done. what they end up doing is what we call work around government and politics and do it themselves. they will work as activists on an issue like the ones careless talk about but they may not think that they could get it done in government. they watch the gridlock and see that as a place where heads but and you can get stuff accomplish but the bottom line is that the place where you could make the kind of systemic change where you get the regulation through so you don't have to keep asking individual companies to make changes out of their largess they do it, we get women inside were making sure the regulations changed. that is what we need. when we ask than women who serve in state legislatures what was

the most important reason the red and the first place, and i am sure carol would back this up, they run for office because they care passionately about something and want to change it. they find they try to change it outside the system and they can't get it done so to run for office and they get it done from the inside. for men, they're much more likely to run because they have had a longstanding interest in a career in politics. our shorthand has become man run to be somebody and women run to do something. we need more women inside doing something to change things systemically so that we can see some real long-term change in this country. [applause] >> there are two women at the microphone. we have to end this because the room will expire about this time. would you say your name?

>> i am from -- i am from frederick community college. bags for giving us the good news -- thanks for giving us the good news that about 70 more candidates are running for office. can we assume that 100% of these women are for women's rights such as equal rights? >> that is your job to look out who these women are and find out who you can support and if this support the things you care about. what we are seeing -- if you look at the party break down, there are more democratic party running than republican women but that is historically true. in united states, democratic women make up 32% of the democratic caucus. republican women make only 17% of the republican caucus. part of what has happened for republican women is they tend to

be a bit more moderate and have a tough time making it through primaries. a real tragedy has happened this year in losing olympia snowe. a moderate republican woman, one of the few voices that was capable of working across party lines and trying to seek some places of compromise which i think we would all agree we sorely need. there is an array of women, more democrats than republicans, but probably varied on their positions on issues within each party. that is up to you to take a look and see which of the women but they are out there and find women that you can support that you believe and and help them get elected if you're not going to run yourself. >> one more question? >> ok, i just want to encourage the younger women in this audience to reach out to older

women to get them social media culturally illiterate because there is a divide in age in terms of comfort with the social and. media if you just said with older women and get them on line -- >> some of us do that. >> i know it as a generality. >> you can't an ageist. >> i know but it breaks that a certain time. when i talk to people about running for office, they say they don't want to come up through the party and put on time on the school board. that is not the way it works. >> that is breaking down a little. in our most recent study of men and women who serve in state legislatures, we found that well over half of them -- that was the first office the ran for. one thing that we particularly

due to women is we tell them you have to work their way up through the pipeline and started the school board and run for local council and then run for the state legislature. what happens is we burn those women out. being on the school board, that is the toughest job there is. you cannot go the supermarket because everybody knows you and you're dealing with issues affecting their children and they are crazy. [laughter] it is a really, really tough job. if what you want to do is beyond the school board, by all means the on the school board. if you want to be on the state legislature, do it. >> martha burke gets the last question. i thought you did not want to ask a question. i thought your the microphone monitor. >> i will try to be brief.

this is something that is applicable to everybody in the room especially people of my age and younger. i hope anybody represents an organization will feel comfortable answering this. i attend a montgomery county public high-school which means i have the privilege of receiving comprehensive sex education in my health class. that is still a privilege in the 21st century. on the past panel, there were a myriad of examples of ways in which women are helping maintain rights to reproductive health, prevent bills from becoming law. it is secondary only to protecting the rights in book real-world is educating women before they get there. many of us were at the morning convention and remember an anecdote that one of the panelists shared about her met who is ashamed to use condoms

when she became sexually active because the share of doing so had been so ingrained in her. that is something that has been hammered into you for years for it unless it can be corrected through education, i don't necessarily think women of my age will be able to move things forward because even if we have the right to reproductive health, we would not necessarily know how to use them. i want to go back to the past panel when they were talking about new jersey but it is applicable -- she said education policies in general are what failed children, not people. in conclusion of that winded speech, my question is -- what policies are we pursuing? what policies are you women of an older generation are you personally as the women of my generation and subsequent ones will know about things before

they have to tackle them? thank you. [applause] >> were year of high school are you in? >> i attend albert einstein high school. >> what year are you in? >> i am a junior. [applause] we have tothink worry about the next generation very much. we support comprehensive sex education. almost every woman's group by aware of does. the tragedy is we have to do more than support it. young men's and women's lives depend on it because we have in our country something like 11 sexually transmitted epidemics.

over the weekend that are campus conference, we have dr. smith who will be talking about a new study which believes that in certain areas of our country, the under-reporting of aids is by a factor 5x. we are living right here in d.c. where in certain words, there is a very high incidence. our younger generation has a right to comprehensive sexual education to protect their lives. [applause] martha? are we out a >> time? we are out of time. >> i just want to say a >> you have to ask a question >>

as a certified older woman who knows how to use social media, want to say let's not forget the old media. you know what happens on the radio and most people let call into the radio our man, a lot of them are younger men who are pretty anti-women and their voices need to be heard there, too. use social media, used new media but don't forget old media. >> thank you very much. [applause] and thank you all for attending [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker.

the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c., march 30, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable jeff denham to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend dr. barry black, chaplain of the united states senate. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal lord god, who alone spreads out the heavens and rules the raging of the sea, continue to challenge us. when we are too well pleased with ourselves. when our dreams come true because we have dreamed too little. when we arrive safely, simply because we have fail -- sailed too close to the shore.

challenge us, oh, god, when with the abundance of the things we possess we lose our thirst for the waters of life. challenge us when we forget that righteousness exalts a nation, but that sin is an equal opportunity destroyer. challenge us when we fail to join you in your quest to bring deliverance to can'tives, the recovery of -- captives, the recovery of sight to the blind and to set at liberty those who are bruised. oh, god, this day challenge us to dare more boldly, to venture on wider seas where storms will

show your mastery, where losing sight of land we will find your stars. we pray in your sovereign name, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings mr. ayotte: nounses to the house his approval -- proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. the pledge i have a liegeance will be led by the gentleman from -- allegiance will be led by the gentleman from california, mr. dreier. mr. dreier: i ask my colleagues and our guests in the gallery to reaffirm our commitment to the greatest nation the world has ever known. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message.

the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed to s.con.res. 38, providing for a continual adjournment or recess of the senate and ape adjournment of the -- and adjournment of the house of representatives in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 4 of rule 1, the following enrolled bill was signed by speaker pro tempore thortonberry on thursday, march 29, 2012. the clerk: h.r. 4281, to provide an extension of federal aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit and other programs funded out of the highway trust fund pending enactment of a multiyear law re-authorizing such programs. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a senate concurrent resolution.

the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 38, resolved that when the senate recesses or adjourns on any day from thursday, march 29, 2012, through sunday, april 1, 2012, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on monday, april 6, 2012, or such other time on that day as may be specified by its majority leader or his designee, and the motion to recess or adjourn or until the time of any reais -- reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, which ever occurs first. and that when the house adjourns on any legislative day through friday, april 13, 2012, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, april 16, 2012,

or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, which ever occurs first. section 2, the majority leader of the senate and the speaker of the house or their respective designees acting jointly after consultation with the minority leader of the senate and the minority leader of the house shall notify the members of the senate and house respectively to reassemble at such place and time as they may designate if in their opinion the public interest shall warrant it. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all committees have until 5:00 p.m. on friday, april 13, to file reports to accompany measures. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i'd like to wish all of my

colleagues a happy easter and happy passover and extend best wishes to our outgoing parliamentarian, mr. sullivan. with that, pursuant to senate concurrent resolution 38, 11th congress, i move that the house do -- 112th congress, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. pursuant to the senate concurrent resolution 38, 112th congress, the house stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, april 16, 2012.

guest: this morning the house adopted a current resolution that allows for an adjournment of both chambers which means the pro forma session may have expected over the next two weeks what people are home for passover and easter will not be necessary. both chambers should return to session april 16th. host: two weeks off as a significant change. guest: significantly there has been a practice of holding pro- forma sessions every three days in order to prevent a recess appointment by the president of the united states. last night, the senate reached

an agreement with the white house where and obama will not make any recess appointments over the break. host: is that a sign of a truce between senate democrats, white house republicans -- white house, and house republicans? guest: they agreed to confirm more than 70 pending nominations, some of which had been sitting on the senate calendar for months. back in december, mitch mcconnell had objected to clearing nominations because they have not received assurances about those appointments. host: so large in this resolution is an effort to clear the backlog of nominees? guest: this is part of the same package of nominations in the

adjournment resolution which seems to represent a thaw in the relationship between the senate and the white house. the house is going along with this indicating that they have a face, it would seem, in the ability for them to negotiate. host: thank you for that update. in march, 1979, c-span began airing the house nationwide. it is available on tv, radio, and on line. >> on or about friday november 21st, i asked admiral poindexter directly, "does the president

know?" he told me he did not. on november 25th, the day and was reassigned to the united states marine corps for service, the president called me. in the course of that call, the president said to me words to the effect that, "i just did not know." those are the facts as i know them. i was glad when you introduce this that you said you wanted to hear the truth. i came here to tell you the truth. the good, the bad, and the ugly. i'm here to tell it all, the pleasant and unpleasant. i am here to accept responsibility for that which i did. i will not accept responsibility for that which i did not do. >> c-span, and created by america's public companies as they -- cable companies as a public service. >> president obama is

fundraising in vermont and maine today. two events in burlington, vermont, a small lunch for reporters and a rally at the university of vermont. live coverage at 2:00 p.m.. he will later travel to portland, maine, for fund- raising dinner. former president bill clinton hosted a discussion on the power of public service. former secretary of state madeleine albright will participate along with singer usher, all part of the power of public service. >> our founding fathers, stability, and public service. his 11 books include, "right time, right, place" "george washington on leadership." taking your phone calls, emails,

and tweets on "booktv." >> wrote to the white house continues. primaries in the district of columbia, md., and wisconsin. later this month, connecticut, delaware, new york, pennsylvania, rhode island. lots more on the website, c- span.org/campaign2012. mitt romney received a formal endorsement from former president george h.w. bush. >> thank you for coming. barbara and i are very proud today to endorse and support our old friend, mitt romney. he is a good man. he will make a great president. we are delighted that he's here. anything you want to added?

i do think it is time for the party to get behind romney. there is a time to hold them at a time when to fold them. now is the time to get behind this good man. we are so convinced that he is the man to do this job. that is about it. without any further ado, thank you. >> it's an honor to be here in your office. was this the chair you set in as president? >> i sat in all of them. i had to buy them all come as a matter of fact.

my back is not what it used to be. >> she will be one of the greatest first ladies. >> how about you? as far as beloved first ladies, i'm sure you're near the top of the list. >> you have a great family. i am very, very hopeful. this is the most important election in my lifetime. i think it is most important. >> thank you. coming from the president and first lady, i am honored to have your endorsement and support. the president indicated that we have been friends for some time. my parents also friends with the president and first lady.

having our support -- great deal to me. on a personal basis, a family basis, and a national basis. i agree with the first lady that this is a critical election. this is an election about the course of america. but i think we are on a very dangerous path and it is important for us to select a nominee and get on with a campaign that will focus on two different visions for america. one presented by president obama and another that will be presented by me, if i become the nominee, so the american people can have a very clear understanding of where the path would leave depending on who they'll let as president. i look forward to being successful in honoring that endorsement by winning. i have a big day coming up this tuesday with elections in wisconsin, md., and the district of columbia. i hope to get a good number of

delegates from those three contests and be on my way to secure the nomination to take on the president. with your endorsement, i am getting a good boost for those contests and also here in texas. i'm told they knew you guys pretty well here. >> you will do well year. >> i look forward to this process and i appreciate your help. we will see the rest of you on the campaign trail. hopefully. >> have you met with george w. bush? >> i have not met with w. bush. we speak from time to time. >> we need to go. did you meet with speaker

gingrich? >> i love that picture of their of the two presidents. quite a legacy. is that right? i remember mattress mack. >> that is mitt romney from yesterday. he picked up the endorsement of wisconsin republican paul ryan this morning making the announcement on box. he will be speaking in appleton, wisconsin. their primary is coming up on tuesday along with maryland and the district of columbia. we will have live coverage of

the results of those primaries tuesday night here on c-span. presidential candidate rick santorum was in fairfield, calif., and their primary is june 5th. he spoke about foreign-policy. he was speaking at the jelly belly candy factory in california. >> thank you. look at that. i appreciate all the work that you have done. thank you so much. we took a little tour of the factory. i know production shutdown a little while for the easter break. they were kind enough to show is a little bit of the production

and test a sample or two. we really enjoyed it. thank you so much for your hospitality. let's give him a big round of applause and thank him for having me. [applause] it is great to be in the conservative heartland of northern california. [applause] you probably never thought you would hear those words strung together, but it is really great to be here. thank you so much. i love the great crowd and enthusiasm. thank you for being here. we wanted to come here to jelly belly -- it's hard to say that in political speech, but it's great to be here. this is a place that became famous because of one of my political heroes and some new

overheard me talk about a lot on the stump of this campaign, and that of course is the man from illinois, ronald wilson reagan. [applause] i always talk about you here as you travel around the country, particularly when we are now faced with running against a democratic incumbent president to is policies are destructive for our economy, destructive for our reputation around the world, for national security, a destructive for military, and as you see this week, the fight against this sequestration and the dramatic draconian cuts in our defense budget. you see the economy lagging and confidence in american not what it should be. a president who seems to just want to talk about how are

better days are behind us and that americans cannot do things for themselves anymore. they need the government to come in and take care of things and provide. things are much too complex for you to be able to handle it in this world see need him in the elites to make the decisions for you. this harkens back to another time, a time in the late 1970's when we had a president with a similar idea, that america's best days were behind us and we needed a government to come in and do more in our lives. we would no longer be a force law good or a force of w around the world. that is the america ronald reagan confronted in the late 1970's when he decided to run for president. the entire establishment was against him.

everyone said his time had passed. america had changed and they were not ready for someone who was from a bygone era with bygone beliefs. as reagan used to refer to come with a three-legged stool of conservatism, believes that american was the greatest country in the world because we believed in the founding principles of our country, a country that was founded on limited government, constitutional government, and he was a hopeful speaker, someone who believed in the institution, a strong economy based upon it smaller government and he used as a government is the problem, not the solution. ronald reagan very clearly was a

strong message of limited government, the 10th amendment, having a track record in california, shrinking the size and scale of the government. that was his message, to shrink the government and dramatically cut taxes. he talked about cutting taxes for everyone, not just those on the operand. it was about creating opportunity for everyone. that is the message i take around this country that we need a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and we need to have a spending program. i endorsed paul ryan's program, and it is $5 trillion in kant's -- cuts to balance the budget. but we need $10 trillion.

we put forth a dramatic tax plan that "the wall street journal" refers to as supply- side economics for the working man. cutting taxes for everyone and focusing on plants like this one at jelly belly, places where you have to compete. he talks about competing with other candy companies around the globe because of the cost of labor, but more importantly the cost of sugar. sugar has a higher prices in america than everywhere else in the world. and also regulatory. he has to deal with regulations from the federal government and you have a whole new layer of regulations in california that makes it hard to compete and stay in. that is why i put forward a bold

plan that says manufacturers and processors, we will cut the corporate tax rate from the highest in the world, 35%, to the lowest in the world, 0%. [applause] we will create jobs for the people out there, not just here but other places to expand and grow their business. this is a reagan-type model, reduce regulations. i am the only candidate who has said on day one that i will take every high cost regulation, close to 500 of them we suspect by the end of the obama administration, ones that cost over $100 billion per year and i will eliminate every single one of those regulations on day one. [applause]

i have someone -- i am someone who has stood up to limited government. you see the supreme court debate in the last few days obamacare. the solicitor general of this country referring to another program that was passed that was the model for obamacare and mentioned it in the legal arguments debated before the supreme court on tuesday. the other program, of course, was romneycare, the template for obamacare with the mandates, government prescriptions, something that ronald reagan would and could never approve of, government taking over the health care sector. i have never supported any kind of mandates. i support the reagan idea of limited government and giving everyone in america the opportunity to provide for themselves. government is there to create opportunity, but the choices and

decisions, the control, will be in the hands of the american people. that is a ragan vision for our economy. it is a ragan vision that is a stark contrast, which is what we needed in 1980. we needed a difference between a republican with a conservative vision that was hopeful and believed in the three people, limited government, as opposed to one that believes in less government, or government of the state level instead of the federal. that is a distinction that has no difference to most people. to say we agree with president obama but just do it at the state level, that is not something that resonates and excites. the reaganoking for conservative in this race on the economy, there is one clear

choice. if we're looking for the reagan conservative on one of the other legs of the stool, and social conservative issues, i find it remarkable that governor romney is running ads in wisconsin right now saying i am not pro- life. the offer of the unborn victims of violence act, the author of the unborn ally and friend protection act, the partial birth abortion ban act. i led the fight on the floor for most of those acts and took care of everything the pro-life fight where i was out there leading the charge. [applause] governor romney was future bidding money out of his own checkbook to planned parenthood while i was fighting those fights.

he ran as a strong pro-choice candid until now and to suggest that i am not pro-life? that is a disingenuous game played by politicians who seek power instead of trying to be truthful to the american public about what their beliefs are and characterize in mind. i have been consistent with the reagan vision to change the platform of the american party. he stood for live, integrity of the american family. he understood the importance of integrity. i have been a leader on that front, too, standing up as the people of california did for a traditional marriage against prop 8. [applause] governor romney? just the opposite. he ushered in one of the first game marriage laws in the

country. there you have a, in sharp contrast, someone who stands solidly against ronald reagan, it slowly against economic issues. i'm from pittsburgh. i did not pay attention to protesters. we just move on. [applause] [cheers and applause] the question is who is going to try and pull together this ragan coalition it. who will pull us together? two will get the people from the swing states that are vitally important for us to win if we are going to win this election? is it someone who, in 1994, when running for the senate, the same

year i ran for the senate in pennsylvania, a tough state that had not elected a conservative to the senate for decades. [applause] but i stood up in that same year, 1994, and ran as a conservative right down the line on ragan principles, ran and supported the contract for america. i was selected over the man who authored "clintoncare."w we took on the best. romney said he was not trying to run on ronald reagan. he lost, just like what happens all the time when republicans

run to the left. we need someone who will not be the etch-a-sketch candidate, someone will stand by their principals. ronald reagan did not say one thing in front of one group and one thing in front of another. he had for conviction. it is the reason the establishment republicans were never out for him. they did not believe. they did not have the core set of values that reagan had come to the sense of values shared by the vast majority of americans. the vast majority of americans are trying to do things that are inconsistent with their values, selling short to win. we need someone who can pull the coalition together. someone who has those values, as a staffer said, that his public

policy is written on an etch-a- sketch, but who's policy is written on his heart. he said he was going to run as a conservative in the fall. i am not going to run as a conservative. i am a conservative. period. [applause] the one leg of the reagan stole that has not got much attention is the national security. we see this come to light a little bit again with the president of the united states was bring off camera to the president of russia about what issue? national missile defense.

legacy of protecting our country from missile attack , but still a threat in mind the most serious that basis the united states of america. thank goodness that successive presidents have continued to support it, to one degree or another. for the president of the united states to do a series of actions, and the irony of this given ronald reagan and his legacy. what do people do you think of in europe when you think of ronald reagan when you think of what he did in poland? along with pope john paul ii, just an amazing transformation.

he stood by the people poland. he stood by hearing their wants and desires for freedom. unfortunately president obama without even telling the polish people sold them down the river all because he wanted to appease an enemy, or potential enemy, one who is afraid we were setting up to protect against their missiles coming into eastern europe, which was not the reason for them to be there. president obama knew that was not the reason they were there. derrin concerned about threats from the middle east. threats from the radical islamic world, so we wanted to position those missile defense system there to bring them where they deserve to be, with solid and

secure allies of the united states. president obama said no. then we have him whispering the president of russia, a country now that is increasingly going back to their old ways of pony elections and long term presidencies which are no more presidents than the previous leaders of russia. here is the president of the united states, the leader of the free world saying, "give me some space. give me some flexibility because i have an election coming up and then i will deal. then i will throw some of our other allies under the bus." again and again. his dream. what is that dream? in this case, it is a nuclear- free world.

he stands here proclaiming that we need to reduce weapons between u.s. and russia. russia is not an enemy but a potential but they continued down the road they are heading. still not an enemy, not one that i am necessarily greatly concerned about, yet that seems to be the president's preoccupation, reducing those weapons of mass destruction. he is taking his eye off of the real threat today, which is the development of nuclear weapons in iran. what has he done on that front? the same thing he did off- camera with the president of russia. "give me a little time." that is exactly what he is going to do with iran -- time. he is negotiating with them again.

he said we would not negotiate with them without preconditions. even though u.s. resolution say you cannot negotiate with the iranians until they seize development of uranium, president obama set that aside and is engaging directly with iran during so giving them a little times they can continue their enrichment without causing a head-to-head confrontation between the united states and iran prior to his election. just like the russians and the iranians, it is all public policy aimed at pushing out the window of possible problems past election, risking our national security with a nuclear iran and

risking our development and read it -- and deployment of the missile defense system to protect our allies in this country. it is even worse buying time in afghanistan with buried in the republic policy telling all of his supporters that we will we out and putting a time when in place. why? would you give the enemy the one thing that they need they know to survive -- help. member now told the enemy that they hold on until 2014 that we will be gone. anne arundel oliver allies in the region that we're leaving. there'll be a time the u.s. is not there. but the drama is eliminated, fine. if not, we are still leaving.

what are our allies doing? they're planning for a time without america? they're hedging their bets. why? politics. reagan did not a whisper to gorbachev, "give me some flexibility." he said, you do this or we have no deal. reagan came in as president, a solid lead firmly planting his ideas planting all three legs of that stool. he had more conviction, but do not understand the core convictions of national security. it was a governor, but unlike other governors he had a deep, deep conviction and spoke,

wrote, elector of it all over about the threat of communism. no one doubted where ronald reagan was on the issue of communism. no one doubted where he was. reagan was solid. for years, i have been the leading the charge on the issue of radical islam, offering bills against syria, the first sanctions program for the iranian nuclear program back in 2006. i was the author of bought. even though george bush originally opposed it, as did joe biden and barack obama. i fought because i understood, just like ronald reagan understood, that the existential

threat to western civilization is now a radical muslim. i'm not allowed to -- i am not free to call it what it is. -- the existential threat to western civilization is now radical islam. ronald reagan had the courage to stand up against his advisers and he called the evil empire the evil empire. we need to call radical is long -- islam exactly what it is -- evil. in the evil regime must be replaced with a government reflects the values of the persian people. [applause] there is one candidate in this race who has dedicated a tremendous amount of time and

energy on this. i spent five years in a think tank traveling all over lecturing on this issue, as reagan did giving speeches about the threat of communism. i was giving speeches in an election where it was unpopular to do so in 2006 about the threats of radical islam, their growth not just in the middle east but here in this hemisphere in central and south america. these are not popular things to say. i was called a gloom and doom war monger. they thought we could negotiating figured all-out. reagan knew it was not possible. you cannot negotiate with evil. you have to defeat evil. [applause]

i'm the only person in the race that brings that legacy of a strong principle the convictions on this issue a depth of understanding, experience. we have seen what it is when you have a president with no on-the- job training national-security. every foreign leader, friend and foe alike, knows that with rick santorum as president of the united states, if you are a friend of the united states come on like this president,, we will be the best ally in the world. if you are a fellow of the united states and do not respect to the u.s. and our security interests, you will learn to fear the u.s. and your security interests. [applause] of all of the failings of this

administration, perhaps the greatest is on national security. people come up saying something. this president has alienated ally after ally, isolated them, particularly the state of israel. he has encouraged our foes and the arab spring is now turned into an icy winter. if you want democracy and freedom in egypt. when the persians bring first joined before the arab spring, president obama turned his back on the protesters pleading for help. they were crushed and they continue to be crushed as iran marches toward nuclear weapons.

they're in danger in not just state of israel with their existence but each and everyone of us around the world as their proliferate with a nuclear shield, terror. this is the future that barack obama is giving us. this is the lack of moral certainty, this is the lack of vision. this is a lack of understanding the rightness of our country. america's values are not just a beacon of hope that reagan talked about, that shining city on the hill that provided freedom and opportunity for all of you, but we project those valleys around the world, we aspire to live up to them, try to instill them in other countries so that people will fight for them. you knew one way or another, with ronald reagan or george bush, you had someone that would stand with freedom, to encourage

them in any way possible that was consistent with our security interests, but not this president. it is a very, very different world. he came to chicago two years ago and he said this. "the united states is the only super power. today they lead the world. nobody has doubts about it. they also lead it economically, but they are getting week. they do not lead morally and politically anymore. the world house no leadership. the u.s. was always the last resort and hope for all other nations. there was the hope that whenever something was going wrong that one could count on the united states. today, we have lost that helped

--that hope." can you imagine any freedom fighter during the time of the reagan years buttering these words? -- uttering these words? that is what this election is the most important in our lifetime. he have won one race in the last 100 + years -- once time -- we have defeated a democratic incumbent running for reelection. only one time. shocking as that may be. we were always listening to the experts, always putting up the candidate that was a moderate, the bob dole's. always putting up the moderate candidate that could appeal to the center. that is how we win.

they would say we should compromise on our values because we have to win. how many of you in the last few years -- how many tea partiers are here who said they were tired of electing people to go to d.c., when the campaign they say that they will be conservatives but then they go to washington, d.c., and compromise. why? so they can win. so they can get something passed. we find out that these victories are in deep hollow and lead us further down the wrong path. i say to you, condemn them for doing it and rightly so. i challenge each and every one of you. now they are asking you to do the same thing. they are asking you, people with

principles, to compromise them, to be for someone that is less convicted than a ronald reagan, because we need to win. my question is -- win what? every time we run someone that the moderate establishment says we need to we lose. why? because americans do not have a clear choice. they do not have someone that actually believes dramatically in decisively to lay out a vision for the american people, to inspire, lift up, and get people to believe in themselves and in our country. ladies and gentleman, that is why i'm here and asking for your support.

california does not normally get a chance to play in presidential candidates of late. but you will in this presidential primary. [applause] i'm asking all of you to do whatever you can to help, go on our website, signed up, make a contribution if you can. but there is also for you -- and opportunity for you to sign up for the call from home program. i would recommend that you call wisconsin over the next few days. and let them know that conservatives all across this country have not given up the fight. we are not going to concede to the modernist of losman who wants to convince our body that is over. it is time just to go away. we have now down to in $100 million.

we have beaten the other candidates into a pole, and it is time to take who we want, even though he is not winning any victories based on what he believes in, but tearing someone else down. we as conservatives need to stand up and fight for a candidate who can win this general election, the stands solidly, firmly, on the three legs of this tool that brought the reagan coalition together. -- of the stool that brought the reagan coalition together. if you can do that for me, help this great organization here in california, we will win this election and make this country that shining city on the hill again. god bless you. thank you. [cheers and applause) [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪

["made in america" by toby keith] ♪

["twist and shout"] ♪ >> rick santorum has 295 delegates so far in the republican presidential primary. mitt romney is over halfway there with 584 delegates. new to gingrich and ron paul are trailing. the next changed is tuesday when wisconsin, md., and the district

of columbia hold their primaries. 95 delegates at stake. we have live coverage tuesday night here on c-span. president obama this morning signed the short-term transportation bill and headed off to raise campaign cash in vermont and maine today. in his two events in burlington, a small watch for supporters and a rally we will cover a the university of of vermont at 2:35 p.m. eastern. he will then travel to portland for a fund-raising reception and dinner. meanwhile, ron paul was in maryland on wednesday for a town hall meeting at the university of maryland college park. he spoke with students and supporters inside the coliseum. 37 republican delegates are at stake in maryland. he was introduced by the university's ron paul for yet chapter. -- for youth chapter.

[cheering "president paul"]

[cheers] >> good evening, fellow visitors. before i start, i'd like to take a moment for us to thank the petitioners who make it possible for dr. paul to visit our campus. [cheers] secondly, i would like for you to put your hands together for the youth for paul chapter members. and its administrators. without this, this event would be impossible. [applause]

his message has been widely popular on our campus. they took note of the unwillingness to cover his universally appealing platform and took it upon themselves to spread the message. [cheers] they took time out of their daily schedules to put ron paul's name on every tower across campus. -- tongue across campus. we had everybody talking about ron paul in our artwork. early into the semester, i jokingly challenged one of the obamacare painters to a contest.

they count the total number of paul voters that turn into obama supporters and we will tell the democrats, republicans, liberals and independents we turn into ron paul supporters. [cheers] we are living in the time where testing the government is considered patriotic. he says that patriotism is the willingness to stand up to the government when the government is wrong. [cheers] after some research, i found out that the founding fathers felt the same way about government and that the principles on which this great nation was founded upon were

planted in this reality. 2008, i looked to a promising candidate to put an end to this trend, to break the sequence of events that would lead to the erosion of our democracy. i was promised change. i was supposed to have hope. i was sold a mirage. just a few months ago we witnessed the passage of the national defense authorization act. >> [booo] >> giving the government the power to detain americans without charge or trial. this follows the taxpayer bailout of wall street and new military entanglements.

and patriot act extensions. news of government activity at this stature and the sirens is similar to an alarm clock that goes off and is constantly put on snooze. you become desensitized to the sound and sleep through the alarm. later waking up to realize that you have been asleep too long. it is time that the people wake up. no more hitting snooze. it is time to bring real change to the oval office. [cheers and applause] ladies and gentlemen, tonight i give you hope.

tonight i bring you a man that will create this change, a man that has not been bought out by wall street, the corporations, or anyone on capitol hill. a man who had predicted the financial crisis of 2008 and has a plan to balance the budget and cut $1 trillion. ladies and gentlemen, tonight i bring you the man that will restore america. tonight i bring you dr. ron paul, ladies and gentlemen. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, thank you.

thank you. [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you. >> [cheering "president paul"] >> thank you.

>> it sounds to me like freedom is popular in maryland. i want to thank you for that nice introduction. the support here was obvious. other campuses compete and they tried to get names, but your campus got a very large if not the largest number of signatures. [cheers and applause] not only is freedom popular, but it sounds like the revolution has arrived to campus, too. there are changes coming out of necessity.

the changes were available to this country for a long time. we had one revolution a long time ago. i think they forgot about it. what happened today, i was at the office on the hill. some young people came in. there were six of them. i handed them a copy of the constitution. i signed it. i said you might as well read it. and nobody reads it over here on the hill. of course, everybody is supposed to be reading it now. they're trying to sort it out at the supreme court. they will come up to a constitutional answer for how far they can go with mandates. the mandate is horrible. acrosse problem stepped the line. -- they have probably stepped

across the line with it. what is government other than a big mandate? all the government does is band-aid everything we do. they have gone a little bit too far. people got annoyed that it would decrease the quality of care. what can you do under the interstate commerce clause? according to the last hundred years, republicans and democrats say you can do anything you want under the interstate commerce clause. that is not what it said. it was written to mandate trade between the states. what they should be talking about -- if anything -- is why can we use the interstate commerce to allow insurances to be across state lines. ?- why can't we

there has been a lot of demand is what i have complained about. -- a lot of mandates and i have complained about. every law has a threat. he was either going to get fined a lot of money or get put in prison. what about the -- the ultimate mandate? it is still on the books. you have to sign up for selective service. they believe that they own you and they can use you. this is one mandate that we should look at carefully and get rid of. we cannot live in a free society and yet mandate that they can make people fight unwinnable wars. we now have accepted a

principal with the last administration. they invented this term. they said it is ok to have preemptive war. preemptive war means you can go to war and you have become the aggressor. we have become an aggressor nation in the goodness of our heart. we will spread our goodness around the world. there has been something exceptional about america. we have a great economy and the largest middle-class ever. middle class is shrinking.

the standard of living is going down. we are involved in debt. the exceptionalism we once had is no longer with us. the idea that he can spread this through force is wrong. what can we do? we say we have good values so we go to other countries and say this is what we want you to do. we will send you a lot of money. if you do not do what you need do, we will kill and bomb you. why should we have a third option? why shouldn't we just say, mind our own business? [cheers and applause]

that simply means that we do not go into nation-building. we do not become the policeman of the world, but we do not become isolationists. guess who the isolationists are? the ones who are looking for war. they are the ones that put sanctions on countries that lead up to war. i have argued the case that at the height of the cold war -- i was drafted in 1962 in cuba. that was a tough time. missiles pointing at each other, 30,000 the soviets had. what did they do? kennedy actually talked to them and said maybe we should back down. they backed down but they talked to each other. we refuse to talk to the arabians.

-- iranians. there is this idea that we have to bomb and declare war. it does not make any sense at all. it jeopardizes our economy. i used to mention a lot about this choice. give them a lot of money or send them bombs. in pakistan, there is a third option we may look at. we give the pakistanis billions of dollars. we are dropping missiles and bombs on them continuously. we do both to them. we look for this other option, getting along with people and different ways. think how much better things

are with vietnam. in the '60s, we have the vietnam war. what a tragedy. the 60,000 americans killed. we were there another 10 years. 1 million vietnamese died. we lose the war. we want to stop the domino effect of communism. the chinese have become our bankers and we trade with vietnam now. this is pretty good evidence a lot more can be achieved in peace than in war.

the great debate that goes on generally in washington, what is the degree the government should be involved? this is the same thing in foreign policy. there's a big debate going on. they do not change policy. they say which country should we invade next? they endorse this whole concept of interventionism. the whole idea of trying to write us off as being isolationists, i think it is time we started trading with cuba and traveling back and forth to cuba. in the past 10 years there were $4 trillion of additional debt because of the wars. not only is it a moral issue, it is an economic issue.

the soviets collapsed because they had a flawed economic system. just think what the difference would be in this country as far as prosperity and the wealth of the middle-class and the ability to take care of sick people. and education. what if we only have people in washington, d.c. who read and follow the constitution? [cheers and applause] article one section 8 is not too difficult to read and understand. it is very precise on how we go to war and who makes the decision. you go to war when it is declared and not at the whim of the president or an administration.

the war is declared by the people going through their representatives. when panetta was asked the other day where you get this authority, would you give this authority, he said you get it from an international government. you get it from the united nations or nato. that is the giving up of national sovereignty and referring to even bigger government. we have enough problems worrying about the federal government. we do not need another level of government on the imf. or the united nations and the world bank. one of my meager proposals for

the budget is to cut $1 trillion. in the first year. you know that. that makes a lot of people nervous. they say what if all these troops come home? won't that increase the unemployment? i said if you cut a trillion dollars, guess what? that money gets spent there. -- here -- not overseas. one example to look at statistically is what happened after world war ii. there were 10 million in the military. they wanted out. it is expected that the men and women would somehow to get out of the military. they said this would be terrible. we have to have jobs programs. they did not have time to organize another jobs program. guess what happened?

the spending was cut by 60%. taxes went down. that was by 30%. then all of a sudden the depression ended. one of the messages we heard so -- myths -- long is that if you have a recession and you foolishly turn it into a depression that the ultimate way you get out of it is that you have a war. their argument is that everybody is employed. sure, but they're getting shot at and killed. that is a heck of a way to cut down on your unemployment rate. what you need is to get the government out of our lives and let the market run.

-- let the market work. [cheers and applause] they want the people who spend the money. they say the lower half does not pay any taxes. they are complaining. everyone should have to pay taxes. we are halfway there. that's when i say when they tell me the lower half does not pay taxes. it is not fair to write the poor off and say they do not pay taxes. they pay the payroll tax. they pay the inflation tax. some people suffer a lot more from inflation than others. you do not go on welfare and you try to work and take care of yourself.

the government tells you your standard of living is not going down. true. not they say you are paying the tax that comes through the money for financing these debts. [crowd chanting something] that will be one of the first things on my agenda. we have a ways to go. there have been some pretty

good achievements. we have had the people thinking and talking about an understanding about the federal reserve system. now the fed is being exposed. after 100 years. we know how hard they fought against the audit. the audit got passed in the house, but not the senate. we have a partial idea. we know more about the fed now than we ever had before. to some degree i was shocked when i found out. i know a little bit about the fed. when i found out about the degree they were involved, the issue of $15 trillion worth of credit in bailing out big banks. half of it went to european banks. this would have been better.

-- better off giving checks to the people and not bailing out the banks. the federal reserve is a facility that facilitates the growth of big government. we are the lender of last resort. we are to maintain the value of the currency and to maintain low unemployment. they brag. they're not doing too great a job. the unemployment rate is much higher than they tell us. inflation rates are higher than they tell us. it is much higher. the federal reserve has been around 100 years. they destroyed 97% of the value of the 1913 dollars. i say we give them an "f" for that. they fail.

[applause] there is a lot of reasons to oppose the federal reserve. in a moral sense, it is immoral to counterfeit money. the law makes a very good point. if you and i can do it, the government should never be allowed to do it either. the federal reserve does duplicate monetary units and does not increase well. -- wealth. it increases some people's wealth. if you had all things even, with the destruction of the value of the money, there is a transfer of wealth. it is from the middle class to

the wealthy. it is the people that get to use the money first. they benefit the most. the people who get to use at last are the people in the middle class because they get the highest prices. it is an unfair system. economically it is a disaster because they are responsible for the business cycle. did they create artificially low interest rates. they pump money into this. -- they pop money into certain areas. they build to many houses. we must give loans to people who do not qualify. and looks like it is a golden dream. they get people houses that would not have qualified otherwise. then the value of the house goes up. in looks like a cash cow.

it leads to a bubble. bubbles don't last. they burst. then you suffer the consequences. this demonstrates the fallacy of the entitlement system. entitlements are motivated by well-meaning people. people need help. they do need a house. we will help them get a house. they get into the speculative derivative business. when the predictable bubble bursts, guess what? who got the bailout?

the people we were claiming we were helping? they were the first ones to lose their job and they lost their houses. the people who have been making the money all along. it was coordinated through the federal reserve system. we have to take a quick look at the federal reserve. [applause] if you are defender of liberty, you want to support small government. [applause] if there is a lender of last resort and we print the money, that means you are spending too much money for war. this facilitates the welfare

system as well as the welfare/or their state. this is why the founders were absolutely adamant about the monetary system "and do not print money. we cannot use it." [applause] >> i believe our goal should be in all political action and our personal lives as well -- our goal should be to enhance liberty. that is what we are all about. [applause] but the tragedy is that is not what is happening. today it has been turned over to the lobbyists. they are in the business of redistributing the wealth, but the wealth is shrinking. the pie is kidding smaller and smaller and every group is getting more aggressive. how are we going to get this

money? at the same time, we are producing less. we have less jobs. we have a 30 million new people in this country in the last 10 years. we have had no significant new jobs. manufacturing -- 56,000 business jobs went overseas. this cannot be maintained. we are reaching a point where something has to give. financial, monetary, inflationary -- the american people are sick and tired of the attack on our personal liberties and the invasion of privacy. this will and because it cannot continue. if the world can keep taking our dollars and financing as they are currently doing, theoretically, none of us would ever have to work again because we just print the money. everybody knows that will not work, but so far, we are doing it. there are some years or the federal reserve buys a small

amount of debt. last year, because foreigners were not by as much, the federal reserve bought 61% of our debt. they have kept the interest rates artificially low thinking they can get these bubbles forming again, but they cannot. it is going to be something that your generation, this generation has to meet up with. i have often said, but i do not say it anymore, that we cannot run up these debts because we are passing them on to the next generation. that is not true. we have passed it on to this degeneration and we have to face the fact this debt is overwhelming and we have to shrink the size of government and cut the spending. [applause] from my viewpoint, the easiest

place to cut spending is foreign welfare. all of the spending and foreign aid and wars -- we should be able to come together. [applause] i cannot give you too much encouragement to say that the typical conservative republican is going to do the job, because they like that oversees spending. it has to be a coalition of those on the right to believe in limited spending and are willing to cut the military spending as well as people from the left. bring people together, get together, and change this for policy and spending overseas. if we do not do that, these conditions are going to get much much worse. we have got to look at the policies over all. the policy of non-intervention -- minding our own business -- is so much better than trying to domineer the world. [applause]

but coming together should not be that difficult when you think about what freedom is all about. i am and that this is the right track to take. freedom should bring us together. people have a diverse lifestyles and they spend the money differently. if you understand freedom and where this comes from, it comes in a god-given way -- not from our governments. [applause] but then what we want to honor and respect is the individual. that is your life. you own your own life and therefore you should own it what you earn. if you have a right to your life and liberty, you ought to have the right to keep the fruits of your labor. [applause]

but what has happened approximately 100 years ago, this idea of liberty was not unified. it was chopped into pieces. some people to a degree defended economically. others said economic liberty does not work. there will be poverty, we have to regulate, we have to manipulate the monetary system, we have to plan the economy and all these things. the evidence is that does not work. they do not like economic liberty. there is another group that says we like economic liberty, but if you have your choice of doing anything you want with your own life, you might do some things i do not like. guess what? if you want to live, as i do -- in a free society -- you have to accept tolerance on how people spend their money and run their own lives. [applause]

but there is another little thing you have to accept if this is true. we have a right to our lives and run our life as we see fit, but if we make mistakes, guess what -- you have to assume responsibility for your mistakes. [applause] the main reason why it does not work to turn these responsibilities over to government is the government is politicians and bureaucrats. they do not know what is best for you. they think they do, but they do not know what is best for you. [applause] this would be equivalent to adding a state religion. religion is pretty important for most people in this country spiritual life is important, but we never for a minute assume that government knows what is best for us, so they should tell us what to do with

our spiritual life and religious lives. we do not accept that. [applause] but there are too many who want to control the way you spend your money and how to control your lifestyle. this is the reason it should bring us all together, not on how we use our freedoms, but we should all come together because we want our freedoms and we want to use them as we so choose. [applause] big government, obviously, represents an intrusion into our personal lives. that is something that is becoming a very very serious crisis in this country today. it has been bad. it has been gradual over many years. the financial privacy was

invaded a long time ago. essentially, you do not have much privacy left if any at all. but, you know, it's to get to the point where you wonder what you can do about it -- i think about what we all have done. i am sure many of you participated in the stop online piracy act. [applause] when the people get the message to washington, they have to be aroused enough to do it. like auditing the fed. we've gotten the people to respond. the politicians are there not because they have a strong belief in anything, to tell the truth. [laughter] [applause] what they need to know is what you want from them in order for them to stay in office. if not, they need to leave that

office and get out of the way. [applause] but conditions in many ways have deteriorated since 9/11. 9/11 was a horrible, horrible day. i do believe it was wrongly assessed and that there is poor understanding exactly why that came about because the official explanation -- [applause] -- the official explanation is that foreigners came here for -- because they were religious radicals and they attacked us because we were free and prosperous. i do not buy into that. since 9/11, it was used as an opportunity. before 9/11, it was written by many conservatives that when the opportunity presents itself, you never let an opportunity past to promote what they

believe in. believe me, with the first thing they did? immediately afterwards it was invading a country that had nothing to do with it. invading iraq. [applause] there was supposed to be weapons of mass destruction, al qaeda there. none of that was true. think of the loss of life, the money pot. guess what -- al qaeda is there now. it was a failed policy. but when you look at the country -- now we hear stories that 15 of the 19 came from there and they have a radical government there. it is saudi arabia. we prop it up. they are protected at the same time because somebody in iraq decides that they might want to use something other than the dollar and they will not do our

bidding. they have to be disposed of. [applause] 9/11 was just used as the excuse. the other thing that happened after that -- within days, there was a bill that was brought back up. it was called -- it was misnamed, of course -- it was called "the patriot act." [boos] so along with the federal reserve, we will be repealing the patriot act as well. [applause] i remember the day we were voting on this.

when i went over to vote, i knew there would not be very many "no" votes. i was sitting next to another member who is voting for it. i said why are we voting for it? we do not even know what is in it. you know the will be a lot of bad stuff. he said, it is called "the patriot act." how am i going to go home and explain to my people that after 9/11 i did not vote for the patriot act. i said that is your job. go home and explain it to them. [applause] you can be assured if you hear the name of a bill in congress, the bill will do the opposite of what it said. think of the advantage we would have had if they would put the name of the bill and called it "repeal the fourth amendment act per "but there are a few that would not have voted for

it. we introduced legislation to get rid of the patriot act. we will call it the "restore the fourth amendment act." [applause] but, today, we have with the national defense authorization act, we have the military now able to arrest american citizens. it goes on and on. who gets to write the search warrants? the people marching into our houses -- the fbi, cia, and military will be writing our search warrants. i think the founders of this country got a pretty annoyed with that when the british army did it, so i do not know. [applause]

we have gone a long way from the principles we have held dear. we note now that our nation is probably still torturing. we assassinate american citizens with no trial. this is not what america is supposed to be about. when we recover and restore the republic, there will be a precedent that will not assassinate american citizens. [applause] will not start pre-empted war, will not go to war without a declaration. [applause] will respect the principle that the voters -- the writ of habeas corpus. right now, we are undermining that. [applause]

personal liberty in a very important way is with us every day. today, if you want to go out and buy a light bulb, you do not have a choice. there is a mandate we ought to talk about as well. there are limits on what we can and cannot do. they have a long time to decide who pays for birth control pills and whether they can put a mandate we are getting away off on tangents on what we should be talking about. [applause] but today, if you want to buy raw milk, you might not be able to.

that is the nanny-state we do not need. we do not need any more nanny- state. [applause] i mentioned about the interstate commerce clause, how it is being abused with medical care, but it has been around as early as 1942. that is when the courts ruled it would be perfectly all right to prohibit if you lived on a farm to raise wheat to make your own bread. and if you did, you could be fined a lot of money and if you did not pay the fine, you could go to prison for raising wheat on your own form. the incrementalism is what we have failed to recognize. i think these and comets have been so great and they have been

expanding so rapidly, a lot of people are waking up. i think the younger generation is certainly waking up. [applause] of course, there was a court case in 2005 that dealt with the interstate commerce clause. but some states believe that american citizens should have the right by their state law if they wanted, for medical reasons, to grow their own marijuana and use it, they thought that would be reasonable -- [cheers and applause] -- but the courts said that was not reasonable. interstate commerce prohibits you from doing this and we have the right to regulate this.

in a free society, as much as i detest the use of drugs, especially prescription drugs -- they are so dangerous -- [applause] -- but if you have the right to decide your spiritual matters and the right to read it sinister plot like communism and socialism, i think you ought to have a right to put into your own body what ever you want. [applause] now, i might add as a parent,

grandparent, and physician -- do it with a great deal of caution. [applause] in a free society, you have to take care of yourself. this notion that the government can protect us against ourselves is the principle that has to be challenged because they cannot do it because they do not know how and they do not have a right to do it. [applause] the big thing is if you make a mistake, you suffer the consequences, but if a politician makes a mistake, everybody suffers. that is where the real problem comes. quite frankly, the people i have met and the people i know who passed most of these lots are not smart enough to tell you how you should spend your money. they should not be doing that. [applause] one thing i have suggested to

try to get their attention and get the attention of the american people about this mess and all this spending -- first we tax, then we borrow, then reprint the money -- if people are determined they want to move along into a welfare state and a warfare state, it would be nice if they would call on the constitution. since they do not, one of the ways we can get their attention is repeal the withholding tax. no withholding tax at all. as employers, we should not be forced to testify against ourselves. if you did not change anything else except this and say, ok, everyone of us need to send a check to the government to pay all the bills do every single month -- believe me, this thing would come crashing down real fast. people would not put up with that.

[applause] the wonderful thing is is that we lived in the at project in a great country, the largest most populous middle-class. the bad news is if we do not do something about it, it is. to say "goodbye per "the good news is the revolutionary spirit, the spirit of liberty is alive and well. it is growing exponentially. [applause] frequently they will tell us when you talk in these terms of -- they accuse me of wanting to go back to the dark ages. you want to go back to the gold standard. why would we want to do that? back to the old days. guess what -- those who oppose us want us to go back to the

old days of tyranny. tyranny is a lot older than freedom. [applause] it should not be difficult when the bankruptcy comes -- and we are in the midst of that now -- to make a wise choice. do we want to accept this whole idea that we need more government? yet today we had a committee hearing on the federal reserve. how can you solve the problem of debt with more debt? they believed they can. when you are in trouble like this, -- we are in trouble because they do not spend money. what if they do not have a job? did we spend the money. if you do not have that, you print the money. they believe that as sincerely as i believe in the free market and sound money.

it is not working. the failure is right on their doorstep. that is why our option of resuming our efforts to preserve liberty is so important. we've never had a perfect society. we never had a perfect gold standard. what we ought to do is pick up the pieces. it will take about 100 years to pick up the pieces. there have been things eroding over time -- the destruction of our currency, the income tax, the welfare state. we need to go back and pick up what we were given. if we got into so much trouble by having so many people totally ignoring the constitution, we did not do anything else except make the people that represent us at least read the constitution and force them to obey the constitution. [applause]

it has been said -- benjamin franklin said that those who expect to reap the liberty need to support it. i do not believe you have to sacrifice. there could be some tough times for some people, but if you would not have bailed out the banks, they would have went to the people. [applause] if we can get the government to get out of our way, off our backs, out of our law, and out of our personal lives, why should we call that a sacrifice? we can work hard and keep what we earn. this would be an immediate effort to bring back growth again. it should be a wonderful time. world war ii was not the disaster they thought. we got the government out of the business of trying to get out of the depression. we came back and the depression ended. freedom is in many ways

miraculously on what it does. [applause] to me, the real miracle is bringing people together because, like i mentioned, freedom should bring us all together. one thing we did wrong in this country, and to some degree still exists -- some people are mistreated because they belong to a group. i can understand that. in the drug law, there are people mistreated under the drug laws because they are punished in a certain way. [applause] but in the same breath, people should not get special privileges because they belong to a group either. [applause] we have to see ourselves as individuals -- individuals who are born with a right to life and liberty and we have the right of ownership and we should all come together for the

same reasons. that should bring us together when we need to cut back on our spending. we should agree that we do not need to be policeman of the world. we should agree that the entitlement system does not work. [applause] but these views have been well received on the campuses around the whole country. i am certainly very happy and pleased with the reception here. there is still a campaign going on. pay attention because they have not counted all the delegates yet. [applause] [crowd chanting]

let me now close by saying an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped. we will watch on. ideas are different. that is what is happening. that is what i see. i am seeing it across the country. be encouraged and have fun doing this because to be despondent is being negative about freedom. freedom is popular.

get out there and spread the message. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] [applause] >> thank you for being here. thank you for coming out.

thank you. good to see you. very good. good to see you. thank you. >> can i get a picture with you, sir? >> thank you. >> thank you for being here. [captioning performed by [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> maryland holds its primary along with wisconsin and the district of columbia. we will have live coverage. ron paul taking the day off from the campaign. mitt romney has a speech this afternoon. we have coverage of that later. fish fry this evening in milwaukee. rick santorum has four stops in wisconsin including a rally in hudson this afternoon. newt gingrich also with a rally today in oshkosh and a visit to campaign headquarters in green bay, followed by a rally there. wisconsin's primary is on tuesday along with maryland and district of columbia. 95 delegates at stake in total. we will have results of a reaction tuesday night on c- span. president obama on the campaign trail today. he is raising funds in vermont and maine.

he is speaking of a small lunch and rally this afternoon at the university of vermont. that is at 2:35 eastern. we will have that live on c- span. former president bill clinton hosted a discussion in washington this evening on the power of public service. former secretary of state madeleine albright also participate along with singer usher. it is taking a global initiative taking place at george rushing to university. coverage starts at 730 eastern p.m.. >> ronald reagan left this. the agents are surrounding him. the first one hits jim brady in the head and he falls down. the second one hits the d.c. police officer who had turned around to check on the progress. he was hit on the back. now, the path of the president is wide open. the range is 20 to 30 feet. he can hit stationary targets.

>> march 30, 1981, john hinckley fire six shots. this weekend, we talk about the race to save a president. sunday at 10 and -- 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. eastern on c- span3. >> new to gingrich is acknowledging mitt romney as the likely republican presidential nominee. the former house leader told al- awlaki radio station that he thinks mr. romney is clearly the front-runner. mitt romney will probably get the 1144 convention delegates needed to win the nomination. mr. romney still has to earn it. that said, mr. gingrich's now leading the race. earlier this week, he said he will continue to campaign and tell mr. romney get the delegates. newt gingrich told students at georgetown university that he is staying in the race despite not winning more than two state primaries.

this is 50 minutes. [applause] >> thank you for that. thank you for the introduction. kevin, thank you for the leadership you have shown. if your interested, you can join the project by going to newt.org/students. we are talking about a personal social security savings account, which are welcome back to. derick two large principles that led me to decide to run for president. it has been an interesting process to try to communicate them and frankly, much more difficult than i thought it would be. one was values and the other was innovation. i'll ticket few minutes to talk about both and then apply it to social security and your generation. i was drawn to run by the 2002

court decision that one nation under god in the pledge of allegiance was unconstitutional. i regarded that decision as so irrational the anti-american and that it required someone willing to seriously take on the courts and start thinking through the degree to which the records at -- the courts have become engines of secularism. this country was founded by the belief that our rights come from our creator. this is the central political document on which the country is built. the declaration of independence. you can actually go see that down the street. if you think about this for a minute, literally, the people who founded the country, this is the base of all american exceptionalism. we are not exceptional because of us. we are normal people. anybody else's normal. we are exceptional because we have inherited from the

founding fathers an explanation of our rights and like any other country in the world. we're the only society in history which says power comes from god, to each one of you personally. if you are personally sovereign. you loan power to the state. the state does not loan power to you. this is fundamental to the nature of being in america. . this idea that the government can mandate everything that you do it is a dramatic shift in the power of the government. the people who founded this country infected a very clear vision. they founded this in response to what they saw as tyranny. tierney is no taxation without representation.

the number two argument of the founding fathers was that judges because they saw the judges as an posers of dictatorship on behalf of the king. that is why they took a number of steps to limit the power of judges. it is why alexander hamilton, in the federalist papers writes that the judicial branch is the weakest of the three. that it could ever take on the legislative and the executive branch because it would be defeated. this is alien to modern law schools. they exist for the glorification of the legal profession and have very lawyer-centered views of reality. in fact, the founding fathers out there were absurd. jefferson that would be an absurdity. for nine people to decide the constitution would be for us to lose our liberty and we would be in an oligarchy. abraham lincoln, who was drawn back into politics by the dread

scott decision which extended power over slavery to the whole country. he says, the court may issue the law of the case, but they cannot issue the law of the land. because if they could, the american people's freedom would be gone. and in fact, lincoln refused to enforce the dread scott decision as president. there is a 54 page paper at newt.org that sally and i worked on for a number of years. vince did an extraordinary job. the fight we are in on the values level is much deeper than the courts and goes to the very heart of what kind of country we are. historically, we are a country that believes deeply in the work ethic. there is a reason, as john smith said in the summer of 1607, that if you do not work, you do not eat.

you can go back and read the top bill's description of america in the 1830's. -- alexis de tocqueville pose a description of america in the 1830's. i will contrast that with the current version of nasa, which has spent $181 billion in the last 10 years, and has no rocket capable of putting people in space. which would make one wonder what exactly they do other than sit around and think spaced dots all day. [laughter] i am trying to describe something very fundamental to the nature of america. the wright brothers decide they want to learn to fly. they are bicycle mechanics. they do not say they have to get a ph.d. in aeronautics, which did not exist at the time. they write to -- they do not write to the government for a grant. they sit up their personal money and they build their own wind tunnel. the only thing to go to the

government for is for the national weather service to tell them where the best of draft is, at kitty hawk. which they needed, because the plane needs lived. they are very smart. these are very clever people. historically, in america, you got to be smart because you were smart, not because you had a degree. and historically, in america, you proved you were smart by doing something, not by getting tender. it is a fundamentally different model. the wright brothers, every year, go down to kittyhawk, and back and from dayton, ohio, you had to go by train. and every year, they took a lot of extra wouldn't for a very profound reason, which we forgot. they knew something really important. they did not know how to fly. they were doing all of this on their own money. it was their major hobby.

it would get up in the morning and have a cup of coffee and start flying. it would not work. the plan would crash, something would break, they would fix it. they would try to apply for five times a day. at the war go right museum, in mystified -- at the orville wright museum, and mystified reporter actually ask why i would go there. i like learning about people who made historic breakthroughs, would change the world. is a good thing to do for political leaders, and a good thing for reporters to do. and the head of the wright brothers' family home said to me, they made 500 experiments over several summers. finally, on december 7, 1903, they went out and crashed four times. the fifth time they flew for 53 seconds. shorter than the wing span of a

747. slowly enough that one right brother ran next to the plane, making sure it did not tip over and killed his brother. three years later, they had improved the airplane so much that they flew are around the island of manhattan and 1.5 million people saw an airplane for the first time. let me give you the parallel. i'm trying to describe both the culture of an active america in which citizens got up every day and said, you know, i think i will go do something, as opposed to who is going to take care of me this morning? secondly, i want to give you a parallel that happens to be true, but almost unimaginably parallel. the for those of you are conservative, you will find it delicious. [laughter] the smithsonian arguably the center of knowledge at that time, bought a $50,000 grant from the progress. the wright brothers did all of

their experiments for about $500, according to the curator of their museum. that would be $250,000 or so today. the smithsonian gets $50,000. and they are really smart. and they go out and find the best german metallurgist and they build a really powerful engine. there is a fundamental flaw with a really powerful engine. it is heavy. the wright brothers had invented and patented a really flight engine. they make all sorts of characters in engine technology because they need a really like engine. they want to build a really light plane. if any of you have ever flown a gah lighter or a paper airplane, lytal -- flown a glider or a paper airplane, light things fly easier. this is a law of physics, but also common sense. the smithsonian knows what they're doing.

they are smart and have all of this money. they build a heavy engine, which means you have to have a heavy airplane. the engine itself requires a lot more support. and they do not want to go all the way to kitty hawk because it is inconvenient. they are in washington d.c.. but they are really important. they invent something we are still using today. they put a catapult on a boat, just like a nuclear power plant. a couple of things wrong with this scene. remember, the wright brothers knew something really important. they did not know how to fly. the smithsonian people thought they knew how to fly. because they had theoretically created a model they believed in. they now take their plane out and put it on a boat. furthermore, they invite the news media to cover it. the wright brothers are crashing 500 times. could you imagine if the news media covered it?

idiot brothers from dayton try once again in a frustrating example. [laughter] there is a very short article by the associated press the day that they fly. he has been out watching them for a long time and he has not written about it because he understood what they were doing. it is called an experiment. meanwhile, the smithsonian in rights fees for reporters to come out to alexandria. -- invites reporters to come out to alexandria. here is the boat, the engine, the airplane. they did not know how to fly. the plan goes straight off of the boat into the potomac. it gives them terrible articles the next day. and in the process cannot -- process, they end up looking like fools. and more importantly, if you land your airplane in a river, the impact tears up the airplane, and then the river tears up the airplane, and then

it sinks to the bottom because it is heavy. then you have to try to recover it, and then you break it some more. by the time you have the airplane back on land, you have no idea what did not work. the smithsonian then learned, to their great chagrin while they are making -- being made fun of, that the wright brothers have already learned how to fly. they react so badly that for 37 years, the wright brothers will not give them their airplane. it is now in the aerospace museum. but for 37 years they would not give it to them because they were so mad at the smithsonian. the earlier america, the america that was the most inventive, extraordinary society in history, started with the idea that it is okay to fail. can you imagine a government agency that failed 500 * going into a congressional hearing?

can you imagine the contemptuous ignorance of the congressman who would have great fun making fun of these guys? it would look terrific back home. can you imagine the current news media? i have always said if the current news media had existed when thomas edison had invented electric light, the news media would have said, "the candle making industry was threatened today." and the whole report would be negative. [laughter] this is a country that believes, first of all, you are in doubt by your creator. you have the right. that is why -- you are endowed by your creator. you have their rights. in the american model, we have power and they are public servants. a fundamental difference, which is part of what the power struggle in this country is about right now.

second, we are a country that only makes sense if we are religious. i will give you a simple test, since you are here in washington. go down to the lincoln memorial and read the gettysburg address out loud, slowly, which is how lincoln delivered it. that is the address that has "one nation, under god" which he had wrote in a while looking at the military cemetery at gettysburg. then turn to the other side of the memorial and read slowly lincoln's second inaugural, march, 1865, four years of war, 620,000 dead americans, more than in all of our other wars combined. the war has steered his soul. he is reading the bible every afternoon. he has taken personal responsibility for willing the war. because any time he let the south secede, the killing would

end. he gives an inaugural address that is only 702 words. 14 references to god. two quotes from the bible. and i bet almost none of you have been in a course in college or in high school where your teacher took the time to introduce you to abraham lincoln seriously, because you cannot without dealing with religion. and we now live in a secular academic world and secular news media were this would be horrifying. i challenge you, go down and read it. get some sense of what america was like. and then go to the fdr memorial, which of course, has been secularized. and relies on the sixth of june, 1944, we landed at normandy. franklin delano roosevelt, the greatest president of the 20th century, went on the radio and lead the nation in six and a half minutes of prayer. you can go to the fdr library and pull up a prayer and listen to it. you cannot imagine how

ridiculous he would be today, and how reviled. and this is a man, by the way, who said that world war ii is a war between "our christian syllabus elation -- "our christian civilization" -- that is what he said, "our christian civilization and pagan beliefs. i believe in american exceptional as impure and i believe in the right to come from our creator. my belief that no government can come between man and god. there are two documentaries about this. one is called nine days in america and the other -- the pope had a nine-day pilgrimage. do you know that in poland, they would not allow children to pray in school? can you imagine a government

that anti religious? do you know in poland they tore down across? can you imagine a government that dedicated to secours -- secularism and forcing it by law? that would be a government that would impose on the catholic church anti-catholic values. can you imagine that happening in america? this administration, which has been eager to apologize to radical islam thus overburdening the karan, karan's that have been desecrated by muslims who are political prisoners. issued a statement that we will sigrid babbidge and others hold sacred. it's perfectly good statement, right? does that mean that we have to put up all of the things that have been taken down? does that mean that kids are

allowed to pray at graduation? i berber we happy to honor other people's religious beliefs -- i am perfectly happy to honor other people's religious beliefs, but i think america needs to honor its own. and that is values. how do we apply those? the second big part of this, innovation. i would say the biggest frustration i had to sleep -- leaving the speakership is the denseness of washington in a resisting new ideas. you are inheriting from your parents and grandparents a bureaucratic mess which is stunningly incompetent following policies that do not work based on facts that are no longer true, and surrounded by lobbyists eager to protect the future. how do you fundamentally revise

politics as citizen leadership? if you go to albany or springfield, ill., you will see capitals where democracy no longer functions. they're basically wholly-owned subsidiaries of the government there and nothing works. they're gradually decaying. show me a couple of examples of innovation. we are living in an age of enormous change. in north dakota, they had such an explosion of oil production that they are down to 3.5% unemployment. and that overstates it because they have 16,000 jobs in the oil field that they cannot fill. one of my proposals is simple. we should modernize and unemployment compensation so that every person who gets unemployment compensation has to sign up for a business training program, so that while we are giving them money, they're learning something.

this would modernize the system. 99 weeks of unemployment is enough to get an associate degree. but today we give them money for doing nothing. a second example, if we had a serious problem -- program in brain science, we would -- program in brain size, we would make breakthroughs in alzheimer's, parkinson's, mental health. if you can postpone alzheimer's for five years, not cure it, but slow it down by five years, you save millions of families pain, and you save between $6 trillion and $8 trillion in expenses. just in that one area. but it would take innovative thinking to organize how we do research to have an all-out program on brain science. i would argue, brain science will yield more helped breakthroughs than any other aspect of biology today. -- health breakthroughs than any other aspect of biology today. third example, you are

inheriting a 130-year-old civil service system that does not work. nobody believes it is launching today. we know in modern management -- those of you in the business school have probably looked at this. there is a program that dramatically accelerates quality and productivity. you will see a proposed estimate that we will literally save $500 billion a year if we simply were to go to this kind of model of management. just by the efficiencies in ball. i think you would actually change the economy by about $2 trillion per year because your have much less inefficiencies. if you took the fda and said, we want the fda to be in the laboratory, understanding the science, and then we want to accelerate in the new knowledge to the patient, that is the

exact opposite of its current model. you would save millions of lives, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and make america the center of productivity and health, which would be the largest single market of the 21st century. but it is a totally different fda done what we currently have. you are living through the argument over gasoline that i have been having with the president it is based on preservation. we have a new method of developing oil and gas. there is 0 doubt that it is working. we went for 17 years in supply of natural gas in 2000 to 125- year supply. the production of gas has driven down the price of gas. it turns out it works. natural gas has dropped from $7.97 per unit down to about $2 per unit. if you did the same with gasoline, it would cost about $1.31. this is just a fact. i wrote my weekly column this week on the whole notion that the natural gas break through is

so big that you will see every company using natural gas rather than diesel fuel. the equivalent per gallon is $1.50 in diesel fuel. that is an enormous amount of money over the course of a year or two. the model or a we have there. it has gone to 24 billion barrels. the people lord belen north dakota believe if we get another generation of breakthroughs, we will have around 500 billion barrels in north dakota. if you have a 125 year supply of natural gas, the correct answer

is not to say that means that sometime around 2137, we will be out of natural gas. that assumes we have no technological breakthroughs in the next 125 years. we had 30 billion barrels and we have since produced 75 billion. we have more reserves than we have in 1980 because it is a fallston number. a number of you have taken glasses where we worry about pico oil. there is 0 evidence today of eliminating that. maybe you're great-grandchildren will worry about it. i am trying to give you a flavor of how dramatically different is to think. i have been arguing we can create an american energy

program for american energy independence which means no future president would ever about reaching out to a saudi king. i argue that if the iranians when a close the strait of hormuz, the u.s. air force and u.s. navy guarantee passage. one out of every five goes to them. 10 or 15 years from now, this is very central to your generation's future. we should adopt a policy that makes us so energy independent that we are capable of saying to the europeans, the chinese, the japanese and the indians, do have a problem in the streets of hormuz, we do not. but you figure how to solve it. that is a different world than one in which george generation will project power halfway around the world every single year of your life. i suggest that is not a good strategy. i will give you another example. when i was speaker, we tried to

open up anwar. if you look at the technology, the amount we opened was very tiny. it is physically right next to where we currently have oil in alaska. -- in alaska. president clinton said there's no point in doing this because the oil would not come on line for least 10 years. he said that in 1996. sixth year you're getting oil. what are you trying to accomplish over time? in 1983, we had a traditional answer to social security. everyone talks about what we're going to do. the city of thousand of adopted a personal social security. the only place in america that has a social security savings account because galveston

because congress made it illegal for anyone else to adopted because it is so attractive. they want to keep people trapped. what have we learned in the last 30 years that this is not a theory. we have 30 years of shelling in experience. it turns out the official actuary for social security is the model. peter ferrara has done more work than any other. he will do more for your generation's income than anyone else i know. [applause] you will notice i gave you facts million barrels. let me give you some facts. if we have adopted in 1983 a personal social security model, we would have over $16 trillion in savings account. that means we will probably on all of our own bonds. opportunity. you will not get this unless you forced the opposition.

they will not give you a choice. what happened in chilly? the savings pool today is 72% of the economy. it is so vague the chileans are now allowed to invest outside chilly is they do not have a big enough economy to resort the savings. chileans retire with two or three times more money than the old system. the system guarantees that if minimum social security payments, the government will make up the difference. in 30 years, they have written zero checks. they have never had a single person fall below. peter calculated that if you look at what happened to the spot market in 2008, a person

you have been part of the system would still have had dramatically more money than they would have got out of the traditional system. the start building up two or three times the scale of resources. will never seen a fall big enough to change that scale of investment. lockerover your lifetime, to other side effects, by building that you increase the size of the economy.

you allow far more investment. by the end of your lifetime, it is seven or $8 trillion bigger than it is with the current system. you are earning a higher salary. you have a bigger savings account. it is a win/win cycle. you reduce income equality by 50%. i'm trying to engage the editorial board. it is a very simple model. every young person if they choose, the first time they go to work, and of putting money build up interest. you have the power of compound interest. how many and you got a check that involved in social security tax by the time you're 16?

at 16, you get this. say you're going to work until you are 70. you have 54 years of compound interest. they build up. you get it every year. none has able to test the hypothesis. when you get people to learn the power of compound interest, and you increase their savings rate? do you move them away from credit cards because they realize this really works? the estimated that if he simply made a voluntary, 95%-97% of young people would pick it. the economic return is so massively greater. you have to work hard not to decide to do it.

it increases your freedom. it increases your freedom by giving more control over your money. the money you save becomes your estate. the taxes you pay, you lose all of it. degusted government. under a personal savings account, that money goes to your account. nobody tells you when to retire. he never had a politician saying what should we set the retirement age at? it is your choice. if you want to do well and retire early, that is your choice. there is no obligation. let's say you never to get out and just kept growing and any passed away at 95 with a pretty big savings account, that is your family's estate. that is your choice. why would you want the

government to control people's choices? and means that of my blaster when president obama tries said i may not be able to send your social security check, no politician would be between you and social security. it would be your money coming to you. there have to be some levels of requirements. brother-in-law's newest idea. over time that does not work. there are ways to design these accounts. look at galveston. this is managed by furman en des moines. they help design is in a positive way. i think the two greatest choices of your generation are who are we as a people? are we still exceptional? do we still think our rights

come from god or are we dependent on the state in the state is in charge? can we take all the things that work and put them into the system? how many of you have ever gone on line to follow a package at ups or fed ex? this is not a fairy. it is a fact that we have technology today that allows you to ship a package and at no extra cost will let up on our computer or iphone forever your particular device is. that means in the world of innovation ups and that each move 25 million packages a day

while tracking them. here's the federal government. it currently cannot find 11 million people who are here illegally even if they're sitting down. imagine that e-mail the package to every person who was here and and it would not cost extra. for nine or $2 a person, you change the whole world. that is hyperbole but designed to suggest the difference and relative capability. let me take this difference. we write a book 34 years ago called stop paying the crux.

-- the crooks. stop paying the crooks was based on this system. how many have you been called by credit company and as with your pick moment because they want to make sure you will really you? -- you were really you? these have such power analytical find out whether or not your fitting your own profile. american express pays .03 of 1% to crooks. it is competing with creeks. new york state medicaid pays over 10% to crooks, a dentist about 980 procedures a day and no one noticed it. in the russian mafia, and medical equipment in los angeles. former convicted cocaine dealers in florida who

imprisoned decided that selling from the federal government was safer and more profitable than cocaine. here is the amount of money involved. i spent several years trying to get the bush administration to understand this. credit card, as to the payments system. credit card, as to the payment system. -- really stupid payment system. what does it have to do with washington? if we were to you them to pay

medicare and medicaid, we would say between 60% and 100 and rejects-- $60 billion and $110 billion a year. you ought to ask your congressman, how about just not paying crooks? this is not count food stamps are unemployment compensation. it does not count dozens of other places. justin these two programs we believe it is between $60 billion and $110 billion a year. take that times your entire tax thing lifetime. you will begin to see how much money is sitting there. this system will never voluntarily change. that is why i decided to run. i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> he has graciously offered to

answer questions. please line up at the center microphone here. we have asked that everyone asked only one question. please do not make statements. as your question in a concise manner as possible. >> hello. i graduated from georgetown. my question is in regard to pork kids as janitors. the kids will do work.

did they will have cash. in high school, i was a janitor in a private school. for me, it was embarrassing toi was poor. -- to be a dancer. i was poor. i did not feel empowered by classmates. why not get these kids to work for law firms that >> i am all for doing that. did you find it useful financially to get the money? is there a reason you're doing it that's what i needed to help my single mom. it was a struggle. i only lasted one year and i had to move somewhere else. george town saved my butt to the financial aid. without this opportunity, i

would not get anything. all my friends are pregnant and in gangs and jail. we all did the same job working in to editorial appeared >> both of my daughter's work as janitors at the local baptist church. they did not think it was demeaning. the white that they earn their own money. they kept their on money. [applause] -- the light that they earned their own money. they kept their money. >> they came from a wealthy family. >> that is not the point. >> i was not wealthy. >> you and i just disagree. i believe in poor neighborhoods

if you could find a way to help people have a job and maybe keep them in the school, i would be a place to look at it. you can only apply to the college of the ozarks if you need financial aid. if you are accepted there, you school year plus two 40 hour weeks and that pays tuition and books. 92% of the students graduate boeing 0 -- oweing zero. the 8% that goes something owe an average of $5,000 because their senior year they buy a car. and ini think that is better than having huge debts. >> is an honor to see you in person after seen onstage for the past year.

why are politicians more like you? -- aren't more politicians like you? [laughter] reagan said we're too great of a nation to limit ourselves? you are the only one seems to offer a bold vision and big idea for how we can continue to grow as a nation. why is it that most politicians are focusing on small things that you cannot do instead of the exhibition's?

>> you are going at the heart is something profound. i talked about having colonies on the moon and the importance of space. [laughter] i got ridiculed, a special about my two opponents. she said to is fascinated because she remembers john f. kennedy st. "we will get to the moon in this decade. we will do it not because it is easy but because it is hard." she said back then we action thought it was possible to be american. we thought it was ok to have big dreams. what has happened to this country that we have such cynicism and defeatism that to propose a bold new venture into space is ridiculed. we are surrounded by a news

media that is cynical and by consultants who are cynical and lobbyists who are cynical. you are in an imperial capital where they want to know how you are going to get the money. they think it is a waste of time. that was true in 1980. at the end of a time when you left office, this was disappearing. they were promptly erasing. they said there's nothing to learn for ronald reagan. we set the all-time record. we had 9 million additional votes. it is the biggest one party increase in history. you ask a fundamental problem. it is so difficult to organize

fix solutions. this transcends republicans, democrats and obama's personality. the your generation is inheriting a dysfunctional country that cannot communicate with itself. i have no idea how to answer your question. [applause] >> thank you. >> good afternoon. you as a member of the catholic church, what you think that the u.s. spends three times what the rest of nato spent in

defense but there are 14 million people uninsured? >> what about a country that has over 20% unemployment? >> it is terrible. >> that is right. i'm not trying to pick a fight. let's be clear. the number one reason why we spend so much of national defence is because you do not. you're going to show me the nato forces that want to take over? they are available this evening. you want to show the nato forces that want to build a defense system? you want to show is a willingness of germany to cut off iran that it would be thrilling. we took a burden after world war ii that we will not be able to sustain much longer. the reality that we are not capable of standing beside the

plan appeared we have to decide whether we want to play a real role. europe has been consistently weakening its defenses for a generation and relying on us. why do you spend so much that i'm happy to work out a deal. he doubled the investment by europe and we will find a way to have less forces. my dad surge in germany in the infantry when i was a kid. they are gone. we should be gone, too. in an [applause] >> thank you for joining us. you did your ph.d. dissertation on education. you were one of the main people with the house. what are your big ideas on u.s. role and development?

>> there are two primary decisions. this is a good pop process for somebody. it if you look to all the foreign aid and said it that had been an investment so that american companies that created jobs were permanent with both the u.s. in that country be better off that i would love to have somebody do a case study on haiti. it is intolerable that we have a country that close to our inshore that we have been involved with a sense 1923. we have built to help the people of haiti.

nobody is prepared to come to grips with how hard it is. i think we adopted this bureaucracy gives another bureaucracy money that some of the wrong signals. we sent all the signals the said go into politics and become a bureaucrat. create a real job. become an entrepreneur. look at the difference in countries. south korea have the same per- capita as ghana. nobody wants to deal with this step. it is too frightening. it breaks of all of the insider deals. indeed you really briefing. but get the disasters of refugee camps. nobody has any private property or savings. they're taking care of by

international groups. no wonder they hate people. they have no vision of a better future. we ought to have the courage to rethink from the ground up. i am told that you were the last question. it is not a good one, yield to the person behind you. >> where we get the money to fund the retirees if there was an option for social security? >> we would do three things. if you get back to 4.2% unemployment, which is where we were when i left office, i help create jobs with reagan and once with clinton, 11 million

new jobs, apple employment the trust fund is healthier than its is that the worst level of unemployment. half of your tax money still goes in there. your personal half goes into your account. the employers have as into the fund to keep it up. there are 185 federal programs for low-income americans. 185 different your accuracies and different sets of regulations. we put them in a one block grants. everyone on it is currently safe in the model we just designed. peter would be grateful to talk to you agree link. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> wednesday, ron paul held a town hall meeting at the university of maryland in college park.

>> newt gingrich all paul intolerant endorsement of mitt romney has a great achievement for all. fat endorsement signing today with his irani say he will look for to working with stepfan, paul ryan to change of resentment here it fit not risk this wisconsin has a primary on tuesday along with maryland and the district of columbia. the press is reporting that santorum has been campaigning aggressively in conservative wisconsin over the past week. mitt romney arrived in wisconsin today. we have live coverage of tuesday to decker adults and reaction here on c-span. president obama on the campaign trail today raising funds in vermont and maine. two events in burlington this afternoon. he is wrapping up a small lunch

with supporters at this hour in the later, a large rally at the university of vermont. we have live coverage in about 40 minutes. a starting price for tickets to president obama's key events range from $44 to $7,500. coming up on c-span, the clinton global initiative at the george washington university. looking at the power of public service. he is joined by madeleine albright along with usher at 730 eastern life here on c-span. >> live sunday, our finding father's -- our founding fathers. your questions for this author. he has the author of 11 books. he will take your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets cent at noon

eastern on c-span2's "book tv." >> "book tv" and "american history tv" to explore little rock, arkansas. saturday starting at noon eastern on "book tv" on c-span2. an author on the killer of african-american sharecropper's . >> that calls going up and down the mississippi delta. saying blacks were now in a revolt. the next morning, between 601,000 white men poured into phillips county to begin shooting down blacks. >> on c-span3, sunday at 5:00 p.m., a former student on immigration in north little rock

high school. >> it is as if they know what is going to happen. we do not. we do not -- we do not know what is going to happen. they seem to because the crowd is with us now. delmar -- the momentum is behind us and they are pushing us out. >> these stories from the local content vehicles in little rock. this weekend on c-span2 and 3. >> "the new york times" had an audit -- had an article on fannie mae and freddie mac looking into the job of the acting director of the oversight agency, the federal housing finance agency. we talked with the author this morning. host: if you picked up "los angeles times" today, there is this headline. it is a story about edward the marco. last sunday in "the new york times" there was an interest and

edward d. marco. it is a marked man. who is he? what -- why all the interest? >> -- guest: he has the misfortune of being the acting director of the federal housing finance agency, which is the oversight regulator of fannie mae and freddie mac. that also makes him the conservator of both companies because, as you know, they are wards of the state. they are taxpayer-owned. so, he has a tightrope to walk. on the one hand, he has -- he has a duty to make sure that the taxpayer losses associated with both companies are not ca