to update their directive about job seekers with criminal records and how employers cannot have a blanket records of denying employment based solely on a criminal record because it violates title 7. now is the time to weigh in with the eeoc to make sure we come out with strong guidance that gives employers very clear messaging about the fact that you cannot deny on a criminal r. i suggested to pick up the phone and call these commissioners. there is a least one who is on the fence. i will not say their name, but i think you should get on the phone and call every single commissioner to weigh in on this issue. thank you. >> nbc has laws on the books that prohibit discrimination -- washington, d.c. as laws on the books that prohibit discrimination. you might want to look at that. >> i have to say that we have to

keep the national action network and we need you to turn out for the hearing next week. and on april 17, 10:00 a.m., 226 dirkson center office building. it is the first race profiling meeting before the senate in over a decade. if you are concerned, you have to show up. we have to fill that hearing room so that the senate is not in a bubble when it comes to issues like trayvon martin, issues like profiling at the border, discrimination against muslims and south asians at the airport. i urge you, if you cannot show up, please ask your local affiliate to write to the u.s. congress to ask them to co- sponsor the end racial profiling act. it was after the rodney king incident that we got this

section for the department of justice. that has been very powerful in changing racial profiling by police agencies. but, we have to take the next step. i would just urge you, there is an action on the table here. we have given you the tools. please show up next week. we need you to be there. thank you so much. >> let's give a hand to those on the panel. those that have to leave, we appreciate you. thank you again. we will continue to take questions. >> i will be brief. >> i will take them until they tell me i cannot take any more. >> i will be brief. i am here from indianapolis, indiana. my comment and question is relative to the war on drugs. i was a young man when it started, so i have seen it.

think god i was not involved in it from either side. i have observed, as has been stated here, the war is on the person buying and using drugs. the man on the corner selling it, that will not ever stop drug trafficking. the way to put an end to it is to find out who the billionaires' are who financed it. then it trickles down. people at different levels are responsible for different things, just like a corporation. being a black man, i do not have the knowledge or resources to set these up. my question is, why has there never been an effort by law enforcement at any level to start at the top? greg williams, now in trouble, the defensive coordinator of the nfl, he said to cut off the head and body would die.

we need to try that to stop drugs from being all over our streets. i think you. >> all right, thank you. can you touch on that? >> i think that we all have that argument. if you go out here and want to buy a couple of rocks of crack cocaine, you might find a 12 year-old kid out there with a bag of rocks. they are dispensable to the drug industry. we all know that arresting those kids and locking them up is not going to control drug sales. i am not a scientist, but it is not rocket science to know that if you cut off the head of whoever's funding and distributing drugs into the country, they will stop, not doing mass arrests on the streets. >> the root cause of criminal behavior according to all sociological studies is the single-parent household.

can you all addressed the overwhelming -- why have you not address the overwhelming number of single-parent households in the black community, which only started after the 1950's and the feminist agenda. is that not a direct correlation between high incarceration rate? as far as mobility within the african-american community, your all very successful. are you an exception? what have you done differently? >> we cannot demonize single- parent. i was a single mother for 12 years. i think -- i think that maybe it is an ideal to have a two-parent household, but i am not so concerned about whether the household is one parent or to parents. i am concerned about whether the household is stable, if people have access to meaningful employment and quality child care.

the president was a product of a single mother. i do not want to go -- i do not think that we should go down the road of demonizing single- parent. we are all doing the best we can. >> i was not demonizing anyone. that is the root cause of criminal behavior. >> 90% of african-americans are not involved in criminal activity, ok? so, the idea that we have a disproportionate number of single-family households in the minority community, the idea that that is the root cause of criminal behavior, i do not accept that premise and i would like to see the data to support it. >> all right. we are going to go to the next question. let me just say, several people have already addressed the issue that one of our ongoing consensus has to be to continue

to try to get the equal application of law and the equal ability to have equal opportunity. because a lot of it boils down to that. if you have the opportunity, it is shown that we will take advantage of it. that will change the circumstances for many. >> thank you for taking my question and addressing these important issues. many of you touched on what i consider to be the root cause of the problem. as many of you mentioned earlier, the enslavement of our people in the country was driven by financial gain. slavery enriched the company. -- the country. it was not stop until the north had to interrupt the financial gain of the south. the same with the civil war and all through the war on drugs, which provides, as mr. marks stated, it provides support for

families, employment for lawyers, judges, court cases. why is it that there is not more of a direct approach to the problem? specifically, boycotts. dr. king established that social justice is inextricably -- inextricably tied to economic justice. yet there is not an immediate or direct approach to boycotting institutions like in florida, with the oranges and vacationing. we should be boycotted now, not waiting. i do not understand why we are not taking a more economic approach to this problem that is economically based. >> all right, thank you. >> good morning. how're you doing?

i have been dealing with the action network since 2000. for 12 years i have been following a simple case in federal court. a person who is out of work for 10 days, going on 12 years. i can understand being late to plant down last april in new york. new york cannot come to virginia. with the understanding that the people have got here, with the knowledge, why can this case not be resolved? because it is political? you know, personally, from your own experience would you have done, but to not tell me how many people here that represents this organization cannot bring closure to the department of direction. 12 years is too long. $80,000 for 10 days? i have been out of work for 12 years?

my daughter is an a and b student, but she sits back and says -- what have he done for you? since 2000 i have been addressing my issues and concerns. we say that education is key. what about policy and procedure? the bottom line is that for this to come to a head, it has to be blown out politically. my doors are shut. i cannot do it alone. i just ask the question, where can my support come from to bring closure and justice to something that is right for me and my family. >> thank you. again, i think that in fairness there is a lot to your story and obviously the panelists do not have the background to that, but certainly, as you have been invited this week, you should pursue that and take advantage

of some of the people who are here. and i have invited you to continue to work with me on the issue to the extent that we can be of assistance. >> thank you. >> my question is related to job-seekers a criminal records. how can young black man -- how can young black men, who had been allegedly convicted of a felony and are supposed to be expunged, how does that expunge meant work? >> it varies from state to state. billy, can you touch on it from the district? >> it is never expunge. they have motions to seal. the records may be sealed, but they can be reopened at appropriate times by appropriate agencies. when you talk about expunge meant, that is a misnomer.

no one is supposed to be able to look at it. it varies from state to state. >> if they go to apply for a job, it will not show up? >> what state are you talking about? >> any state. north carolina, greensboro -- >> you have to look at every state. it is a specific type of legislation. if you look at expunging or motions to seal for north carolina, it will tell you the procedures. it will seal a record, which is the help. >> may be one of the action items, again, is to put together a task force to seek better enforcement of those laws with regard to disposal of criminal records. we do see violations of that. police officials always have access to that and they leak information, particularly when it comes to juvenile arrests.

the release that information illegally, basically. so, we can certainly look to see how to ensure there are penalties even for those in law enforcement violate those laws. >> a very good question. do not rush back your seat. if you are driving down the street right now and a police officer pulls you over and they said they found the drugs on you and then you get to court and said those were not drugs, if you are arrested, you might think that there are courthouses all over, but someone has to go back and help you seal that record. i think it is a good idea to have a task force on that issue. i would be glad to work with you on that to try to -- [applause] >> all right, we are truly -- actually, we need to end. you are going to have to be the last.

>> i cannot be the last. look who is behind me. look who is here. she has to be given an opportunity. >> well, she can share it. >i will take 20 minutes, then she will take 20 minutes. i'm kidding. you heard me right there. john conyers, reparations. why do we keep avoiding that issue? his number is 2022256126. i do not see anyone writing it down. his office of reparations bill, the issues that are brought up here, we do not have the time to deal with all of them. but with that, we need to do a million angry black woman marched to the oprah winfrey studio because rosie o'donnell does not need to be in there, now she wants to put maria shriver in there while we have

these issues that are still unresolved and not televised. i want to work with you all to make that happen. an angry black woman march. >> i got you. i will do one other. i will ask you to work with queen mother blakely, who has worked for a long time in the reparations movement. you too can bring suggestions. >> professor, is deeply -- a professor is deeply involved in preparations. >> that is right. he has been doing the cases out of tulsa. this is last, but by no means least. >> -pam, and i work for the move organization. we had a great civil rights victory with the release of [unintelligible] off of death row. the victory is not over, because they think we are going to

compromise by having him removed from that road to life in prison. he is innocent. we will not stand by. we need everyone's help. they have broken every lot. they threw out evidence of innocence in the last appeal. like the sister said, a 1 million angry woman march. i have been angry for a long time. and he is not the only one. he brings attention to this. what i am saying is that the supreme court just threw out a man's last appeal. he is doing life in prison. it shows evidence of innocence. of what is it that we can do today in getting together to do something about this? april 24, we are occupying

justice. enough is enough. >> we want to make sure we get that information. for those of you who may not know, the sister is truly one of the heroes. many of you can look in your history books with regards to the movement in philadelphia. it was one of the only urban bombings i am aware of. they have obviously been very diligent in the efforts around [unintelligible] we continue to stand with you and reverend sharpton to work with you on innocents never being given up. sustained indignation is when you need. i wanted to thank the panel. as i have indicated, we have a session beginning at 12:00. we have been sitting for a long time. take an opportunity to take care of nature, if you need to, then

come right back in. again, thank you, thank you, thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> here is how our evening live coverage shapes up on the c-span networks. at 6:30 eastern, ruth pater ginsburg, sonia sotomayor, and elena kagan pay justice to for justice sandra day o'connor. we will have live coverage of that event on c-span 2 at 6:30 eastern. more camp in 2012 coverage this evening. the indiana republican debate between richard lugar and richard murdock, live at 7:00 p.m. here on c-span. >> for this year's studentcam

competition, we asked students to create a video about what part of the competition was important to them, and why. today we are going to waukesha, wisconsin, to meet with the third prize winner, tyler johnson. your documentary was on women's suffrage and the 19th amendment. why did you choose this topic? >> it was always very important to my grandmother's mother that she could vote. it passed down to my grandmother. because she was able to live through that amendment, even though she was not old enough to vote at that point, it was still very much there in the family and household that they lived in. >> you covered some of the history of the suffrage movement leading up to the 19th amendment. what did it help you to understand about this movement? >> ihe the women had to go through to be able to get

and to be able to earn the rights they did. it has just shown me that it was that important to them and that they did not want that to go unnoticed. that they wanted all the same rights. they wanted to be as equal as men and everyone, really. >> what did you learn about the early leaders, like susan b. anthony and cady stanton? >> they were part of writing this amendment and they never really wanted to give up on it. they always kept going after their dreams, which was to be able to create a world where -- a country where men and women were equal to each other. >> earlier you mentioned your grandmother. how did your interview with her deep in your understanding on the issue.

>> it made me feel more like i could relate, help to relate to her a little bit more. it made me feel like i was actually part of where she was from. like, that she could not relieve vote. that her mother could not vote. it made me feel a little bit more like i was actually there, seeing what they actually had to go through and how important to her and her mother did was to be able to have this right to vote. >> what was your favorite part of this entire process? >> it was very interesting to learn about this amendment to the united states constitution. it was also very important to see how all of my information that i had put all together and i had created this video -- it was fun to see how it actually came together into in a minute video off of probably more than one hour with the footage i had.

>> what would you like the people who see your documentary to learn? >> i would like people to learn that voting is not just a privilege. it is almost a responsibility. like my grandmother said. i agree with that strongly. i also think that people should learn that what the women had to go through to be able to get this right is not like just going to ask someone about -- not just to be allowed to vote, they had to go through many years of suffering and hard work to be able to get to where they got to. >> tyler, thank you for talking with us today. >> thank you. >> here is a brief portion of tyler's documentary. >> i am a citizen of this country, and this culture. the only way that i participate fully is by voting.

it is my right and my responsibility to vote. >> susan b. anthony and elizabeth cady stanton drafted the amendment and first introduced it in 1878. it was 41 years later, in 1919, when congress submitted the amendment to the states for ratification. one year later it was ratified by the regulated number of states, with tennessee being the final vote needed to add the amendment to the constitution. >> the 19th amendment was ratified with the perfect 36 state, which happened to be tennessee. there were 48 at the time. 35 had done that. tennessee was on the spot. it became the perfect 36, giving women the right to vote. >> you can watch the entire documentary along with all of the winning videos at studentcam.org, continuing the

conversation on our facebook and twitter pages. >> former president, george w. bush, said the increasing taxes would hurt jat bridget hurt job growth. his remarks were followed by the new jersey republican governor, chris christie, who talked about efforts to balance the budget and cut taxes in his state. this is just under one hour. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please let -- please welcome the president of the george w. bush foundation. >> good welcome. -- good morning. welcome to the george of the bush society. three years ago they started the george w. bush center on the

campus of the university. it will be finished by the end of the year. one year from now, april, we will dedicate the building at a ceremony in dallas. half of the building will be given to the federal government to be the permanent home of the george w. bush presidential library and museum. a place where people can come to learn and study about the presidency of the president and he and laura's public service. the other half will become the permanent home of the george w. bush institute. the institute has also been working for three years, started by the president and the first lady to be a platform on the continuing service issues they are really interested in. for the last three years we have launched a program to eradicates cervical cancer on the continent of africa. we have work to empower women in the middle east, to be agents of

change there. we have worked to document the work of dissidents for trying to bring freedom to their home countries. and today we continue to launch our economic growth perspective in the 4% growth area. i would like to especially recognize a couple of members that have brought the institute along. donald evans, our chairman of the board is here. karl rove, and edward lazear, who were on the board of the institute, guiding what happened at the institute, and [unintelligible] who will be here later and has been a great partner in this. i would like to introduce to you the founding director of the george w. bush institute, a smart and busy man, george glassman. [applause]

>> good morning, everyone. this project was organized by [unintelligible] we launched that project one year ago in dallas, and it included four winners of the nobel prize in economics. the goal is to search, discover, and promote ways for the united states to achieve sustainable, real, 4% growth. or about twice the rate being currently projected for the united states. we want to change the conversation in america so that it centers on growth. you will hear from him in a panel later today, but in the meantime, let me try to channel her. for five months she has been saying that this is not going to be a boring conference. it is, at its core, about competition. people like competition. it is fun. it is why people go to baseball

games. tax competition is a reality. yet the tax debate usually ignores competition. many analysts disapprove of it. we do not. we like it. we think it is exciting and uplifting. it makes the global pie bigger. there is no doubt that better national and state incentives make a bigger slice of pie at home. people say that economics is the dismal science. it is not. it is actually a happy science. because it is the science of choice. at its core, choice is all about human freedom. economics is about the decisions that people make and the incentives that drive them. public policy plays a key role in determining those incentives. tax policy is the most powerful of those public policies. the way its structure can get people to work more or less,

invest more or less, to start more or fewer new firms and expand more or fewer current ones. in europe, people work a full one-third less than we do. edward press scott, who presented at our conference in dallas said that the reason is not culture, climate, it is the marginal tax rate. nations and states that want to work more and invest more and have more opportunity and prosperity understand they are in a global and national tax competition, as we're going to see today. in a way, much of what we will be doing today is looking from results the causes. if strong growth is desired, we asked the question, who grows? look at countries and states in america at different times in its history. there are places and times where growth has been particularly strong.

we want to know if tax policies are at the root of that success, and which ones. the governors here with us today understand the incentives that produce growth. the state of tennessee already has no personal state income tax. it may be the reason that his state has outstripped missouri, which does have budget tax, personal income and in gdp, as well as employment. the governors of kansas, oklahoma, maine, and new jersey, here with us today, are all moving to cut state tax rates. they understand the power of incentive and competition. in the panels that follow, we will turn the spotlight on state taxes and what they mean to state growth and national growth. these sessions will be followed by a panel on international tax competition, taxes throughout history, and conclusions we can

draw from it. next, we will break for lunch followed by an address from paul ryan and the real-life impact of taxes on people that run businesses. then we will look at what we learned in a star-studded panel called list solutions. what we should do in a practical sense to win the tax competition. then we will close with a session from the u.s. chamber of commerce. i would like to thank them for the sponsorship of this event, as well as our other sponsors. and our media partner, forest. but we are a dallas-based organization. we like being in the heartland of america. so, what on earth are we doing in new york? not only is this the white hot center of business and finance in the united states, it is a city built on competition and global trade. what better place for this conference than the new york

this -- new york historical society? also with deep roots in the commerce of this city is our next speaker, steve forbes. his grandfather was a journalist who immigrated to new york from scotland and started a great, eponymous business magazine that he presided over for 37 years, which he passed on to his talented son, malcolm. today forbes has a circulation of more than 6 million. he has successfully led the transition to the internet age with forbes.com, with 25 -- 25 million unique monthly visitors. he served under george h. w. bush as the chairman of international broadcasting and in 1996 and 2000 he sought the nomination for president, running on a principle platform,

focused on growth, driven by low marginal tax rates. in 2000 he ran third in the primary and second in the caucuses of iowa, and i cannot remember who beat him. speaking of happy, there is no more optimistic campaigner for freedom and growth than steve forbes. steve? [applause] >> thank you very much, jim, for those kind words. thank you to everyone at the bush institute for making today possible. this meeting could not be more timely. even though i tried to do something in 2000, obviously it did not work, which is why i am the introduce her today. -- which is why i am doing the introducing today. [laughter]

the big tax cut for president bush, particularly 2003 -- many people do not remember that president bush had inherited a faltering economy when he came into office. for some reason, he did not feel the need to remind us of it for eight years. got to get on the high level again. president bush understood that taxes are a price and a burden, not just a means of raising revenue. a profound insight. when you lower the tax burden on people trying to do good things, like risk-taking, you get more of those good things. president bush also understood that economic numbers represent real people. he realized the purpose was to

give people an opportunity, as lincoln put it, to prove their lot in life. this focused on people. it was a distinguishing characteristic of president bush. residents make decisions that could mean harm or death for people, most obviously for people in uniform. president bush never hesitated to make those decisions. never let himself forget that casualty numbers involved human beings and their families. he spent considerable time visiting the wounded and their families and he does so to this day. what a great historian said about lincoln, it applies to president bush. he said that lincoln was moved by the wounded and the dying, wounded as no one in a place of our can afford to be. for him it was a pop -- impossible to drift into the

official callousness that sees men only as hommes to be shifted here and there and expanded at the will of others. president bush also shares a fundamental similarity with harry truman. truman pasquale where -- cold war policies marked a profound break with the american tradition, particularly after the isolationism of the 1930's. never before had america played such a consistent and active role in the world. in choosing to respond to the threat of soviet expansionism, truman had to innovate and navigate with, so to speak, no playbook ago by. no wonder that his secretary of state for four years entitled his memoir -- present at the creation. so did president bush faces a situation without precedent,

without established principles or rules after 9/11. when the british face the not his alone after the fall of france, churchill expected each day to see paratroopers dropping from the skies as a prelude to invasion. after 9/11, we all expected follow-up attacks of terror. paratroopers never came to britain. thankfully, a second 9/11 never happened. leadership counts. like harry truman, president bush rose to the occasion and set back some better controversy. one example underscores the president's ability to rise to the equation. by 2006, people were counseling to get out of the war in iraq. against fears of the rigid opposition and skepticism,

president bush forced a fundamental shift in strategy. it worked. the war in iraq was 1 when he left office. as was said of harry truman and the cold war, so it must always be said about george w. bush and his war against terror. he was right on the big ones. ladies and gentlemen, the 43rd president of these united states. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you very much, steve. overly generous in your comments. i appreciate it. i appreciate you all coming. i appreciate our sponsors. i appreciate the u.s. chamber.

i appreciate our governors being here. pretty cool job, is it not? [laughter] i am looking forward to hearing it. i am looking forward to seeing my old friend, dr. kissinger. and amity, for helping to get this conference strong. we are proud to host the conference. it is a part of our mission to enlighten and achieve results. i toured the facility. these are for the supporters. the facility is an awesome building on a great campus. what robert has done as a world- class architect is fantastic. the gardens are going to be

beautiful. i look forward to the opening in 2013. so, the bush center is comprised of three parts. one is the library and archives. the library and archives will 4 million photos, tens of hundreds of boxes of materials, hundreds of e-mails, all of it stored and sorted -- at some point in time -- so that it can be analyzed by historians. it will really be about presidential decision making. it will not last if it is only about me. it will be interesting for a brief period of time, but the museum is going to be about like principles, and how you make decisions. for example, we got a piece of the world trade center, which will remind people of that

fateful day. here is the lesson, by the way. in life you will be dealt a hand you don't want to play. so, when you get out of office, it is kind of a daunting feeling. you have served, given your all, and suddenly house some years ahead of you. i have had plenty of the limelight, i have decided to stay out. i do not think it is good for the country to undermine the president, and i do not intend to do so. but i will remain in the areas i am interested in. an opportunity to be engaged in public policy in a positive way. the building is not open, but the institute is. every day the scholars, fellows, and directors come to

work to advance this mission. how do we promote freedom? how do we honor traditional, timeless values? the programs are designed, i think you will see, programs are designed with clear goals in mind. , but know that these will have concrete effects on the country and the world. and show the reform movement that insists upon accountability as a key to educational excellence. one of the things we are doing is focusing on, with one of the key issues being the recruitment

and training of nation principles. we know we have a calling to save lives in the developing world. at the bush center, we will act it out. one way we are doing it is the pink ribbon red ribbon campaign. that is to diagnose and treat cervical cancer. we have assembled a group of public and private partners. we are going after it with measurable results. we believe that all the universality was the desire to freedom. i am not surprised the people the land there and human-rights.

we recently announced a freedom archive, where -- where dissidents, political figures, they can be stored and made available over the internet. like the dalai lama. as their minor to our fellow citizens that we cannot become isolation -- isolated and hope for freedom tomorrow. it sends a signal to those on the front line. if your interested, go to our website, freedomcollection.org. i think you will find it interesting. we think that women will lead

the democracy movement in the middle east. we have invited egyptian women to come to the country to see how civil society developed in our own society, introduce mentors, and send them back home full of confidence that they have support in the united states to take on the tough tasks of helping democracy advance. one of the goals we have established is for them to set up a women's network across egypt to provide comfort and strength as they remind the men of egypt that egypt needs a society that is pluralistic. that the loot -- rule of law is important and democracy yields peace. we are dancing freedom by supporting patriots and veterans. we have got a military service initiative, an effective non-

governmental organization that helps veterans. giving money to these ngo's, we will help you understand if your money is well spent or not. people ask if i missed the presidency. i really do not. i enjoyed it. it was unbelievably interesting. it was inconvenient to have to stop at some stop signs coming over here. i guess i miss that. [laughter] but i do miss being commander- in-chief a lot. i of myra our military and law. the bush institute gets me the opportunity to repay, best i can, our veterans. to this end, for example, i am taking a bunch of them mountain bike riding. yes, i love to mountain bike ride. what i do not like to do is be beaten by one legged veteran on a mountain bike. [laughter]

but it is likely to happen. we also sponsoring a golf tournament for the vets. a way to say that we love you, honor you, and thank you. finally, at the bush institute we believe the economy and believe that one of the clearest expression of freedom that the aggregate demand of our citizens produce that which is produced. we believe that government is important, but we believe that government ought to trust the people, the collective wisdom of the people. we trust people when it comes to spending their money. so should the government. much of the political debate, rightly so, is about the balance sheet. the debt to gdp is pretty high. what do you think about entitlement?

the overhang is daunting. be believe that in order to solve that. the focus should be on private sector growth. private sector growth will increase revenues and, with fierce fiscal discipline, you can better solve your entitlements. this year of -- the english instead to did not think that i could read much, -- instituted not think i could read much, lest by a book. [laughter] well, we are putting together a book to provide the content on how to achieve by 4% growth in

the private sector. look, we recognize that this is ambitious, but most rack -- experts recognize that it can be done. i hope that policy makers take the time to read what the experts think. cutting wasteful spending, entitlement reform, immigration reform, increasing policy, we are going to talk about today is pro-growth tax policy. the best policy for rowing the private sector. i have been emphasizing private sector growth. if the goal was public-sector growth, it would be a short conference. we would just raise taxes. but, we believe the best policies create a robust private sector. so, what does that mean? first of all, it means an understanding of how jobs are created. who creates them. 70% of jobs in america are

created by small business owners. is that not interesting? most small businesses pay tax at the individual income tax level. therefore, if you raise taxes on these so-called rich, you are really raising taxes on the job creators. if the goal is private sector growth, you got to recognize that the best way to create the growth is to leave capitol in the treasuries of the job creators. secondly, if you raise taxes -- i wish they were not called the bush tax cuts. i was there were called some other bodies tax cuts. but they were less -- there would be less likely to be raised. but if you raise taxes, you're taking money from the pockets of consumers. it is important for policymakers

to recognize that this causes capital to stay on the sidelines. uncertainty eats the capital fuel for private-sector growth, which simply will not move. anyway, that is what we are here to discuss. i think he will find it to be a fascinating day. i am looking forward to the discussions, as well as hearing our first speaker. chris christie has caught the attention of a lot of people, including texans, you would be happy to hear, governor. we see your enormous personality, your robust defense of freedom, your belief in individual, and we admire the courageous stance the uk. welcome, governor of new jersey. [applause] >> could morning, everyone. thank you, mr. president, for

the invitation to be here today. i am proud i and my career to be a proud member of the bush administration. i have now taken the motion to be the governor of new jersey. you go ahead and lose grand jury subpoena power. every time you do, it is a demotion. for some of you that comment is more significant than others. [laughter] i am happy to be here this morning and talk to you about our experience in new jersey. i agree that the most important thing that you can do as the governor for your economy is try to institute pro-growth policies that grow the pie and are optimistic. however, optimism was the thing

that was difficult to find in january 2010 in the state of new jersey. here's why. in the eight years before i became governor, our state raised taxes and fees at the state level 115 times. in the decade before i became governor, new jersey had a zero private sector job growth decade. a decade where we had zero job growth in the private sector. but in the decade before i became governor, we became the state in america that had the most government workers for square-mile. that is an enormous achievement. [laughter] one that took incredible work. through eight years of three democratic governors and a fully democratic legislature.

so, when i came to office in those first few weeks, january of 2010, you would think yourself that coming in, the news could not cure worse and i was assured by my predecessor the he was leaving me a budget that was, as he said to me in our first post-election meeting, on a glide path for the rest of the fiscal year. i guess he and i have a different definition of the term glidepath. imi said week as governor, my chief of staff and treasurer came into my office and said that if we did not cut $2.2 billion in spending over the next five weeks, that new jersey would not meet payroll for the second page. in march. imagine that, 60% of the fiscal year already gone, and a $29 billion budget where we had to

find $2.2 million not in cuts to projected growth, but in money that we had essentially sequestered. it had been appropriated and was counted on being spent across the state to meet payroll. not to meet a lofty goal like cutting taxes. in order to meet payroll. in what is the second wealthiest state per-capita in america. if you need any greater example of what happens to an economy when a state government over taxes, over spends, over barrault's, and over regulates, come to the new jersey of january 2010. even with the second wealthiest populace in america, per- capita, we would be unable to meet payroll in march. i had two choices. keep in mind, despite having won

the election in november 2009, democrats retained healthy majorities in my legislative houses. i was dealing with a democratic senate president, a democratic assembly speaker. so, we had two choices on these cuts. sit down and negotiate with the legislature, or, because of the unique constitutional structure in new jersey, we could, my attorney general argued, cut the spending through executive order. for those of you who have watched me for the last 2.5 years, if you believe i made the first choice, then you need to leave now. [laughter] we sat in a room over the course of three weeks and we went over 2400 line items in the budget. we cut $2.2 billion from the

budget. i went in there and i will take what was a 40 minute speech and break it down to 30 seconds, which some people say i should have done in the first place. here's what was -- i came to office, you did nothing to fix the problem, so i went to my office and cut $2.2 billion in spending. here are the cuts. the executive order is in effect. thank you very much, see you later. the press descended on the floor after i left. the democratic leadership had their say. there were calling me all kinds of names. julius caesar, napoleon bonaparte, all of those great leaders of the past i admires so much.

[laughter] the next day i came into the state house as -- at the same time as the senate president. he is a friend. he is from a southern part of our state. he is the president of iron workers local in new jersey. so, he is a big guy, like me. i saw him and i said -- steve, julius caesar, napoleon, i read all the stuff you said in the newspaper. i said i would send the problem down the hall and you could fix it. all you need to know about politics is he said -- governor, wait a second now. [laughter] no reason to overreact. [laughter] so, of swiftly, within three weeks of that speech, i had to

present my fiscal 2011 budget. it had a projected deficit on a $29 billion budget. 39% was the largest deficit in america. now, my democratic friends thought that that was the time to move in for the kill. they went back to their favorite thing. the press will be talking about it today. they will have a millionaire's surcharge. i want to make sure the wonder stand. people mess this up. in new jersey we have already had its second millionaires tax. in new jersey, they said the millionaires' tax applied to everyone who made $400,000 per year or over. that is called new jersey math, everybody. i tried to use it as a selling point earlier i and my ministrations. i said -- we all aspire to be wealthy.

we all aspire to success. if you are not a millionaire, one,ou'd like to feel like come to new jersey. even if you are not a millionaire, we will tax you like one. the tax was a 9% on everything $400,000 and over. now what they wanted was 10.75. we had a little discussion, a debate about that. they decided they would pass that tax. and so they did. with great fanfare, he passed the bill and the senate. he called all the cameras. you know, everybody has a good

mother. she taught me to be polite. i put my coat on and i came out to greet the guests. i forgot what it was called. they think that maybe they can slighted by. -- slide it by. he handed me the bill. mr. governor, here is the bill. wait one second. i want you to sit down for a second. i sat down at a little table and i vetoed it. this is not where we are going in new jersey anymore. he said, we will be back. i said, will see. we went ahead and proposed a budget and balance the budget

without any tax increases, that cut spending by 9%. [applause] that one guy started clapping, that was about the only class i got initially. we cut every department in state government, every one of them, everything was cut. everyone shared in the sacrifice. they said that budget was dead on arrival. but that is fine. we believe in resurrected life. we resurrected that budget. the democratic legislature well as the passing it with 99.8% of the light items exactly how we send it. -- sent it.

it did not increase the cost of their government. you cannot start pro-growth policies until you get your house in order. you have to first step up to the plate and do the difficult things. new jersey has the highest topper taxes in america. in the 10 years before i became governor -- property-tax as in america. as they were passing the budget, at about 2:00 a.m. the day before the constitutional deadline, i faxed them a little surprise. i called back into session on july 1. we're going to consider a 2% cap on property taxes before we leave for summer vacation. they passed my budget, and then went back to their offices and found that letter and had to come back to work. they came back to work on july

1st. we're getting closer to the fourth. it was over the weekend. all of a sudden, on the third, spouses from all over new jersey burk calling their husbands or wives sank listen, we are already at the jersey shore. the kids are driving me crazy. give him whatever he wants and get out of there. i am still indebted to the husbands and wives of democratic legislators all over new jersey. in the afternoon of july 3, we came to an agreement on a permanent 2% cap on property taxes in new jersey. later in the year, totally reformed the interest arbitration systems that were driving salaries up. but the same cap on arbitration awards.

again, done with a democratic legislature. we had another big problem to fix. the same way that medicare, medicaid, social security are threatening the fiscal health of our country, state pensions and health benefit costs were threatening the health of our state's economy. in the fall of 2010, we had a $54 billion deficit in our pension fund. as $67 billion deficit in our health benefit fund. $121 billion combined. that would be four years of the state budget to bring that to balance. i came in september 2010 with a proposal. the public workers in new jersey, they paid nothing for

their help insurance. from the day they were hired until the day they died. nothing. on pensions, we had to make significant changes. we proposed increasing the retirement age, eliminating cost of living adjustment until the health of the funds for back at 80% or higher. and in early retirement for political appointees and increasing the penalties for retiring early for anybody. by the way, increase the contributions by public employees to their pensions. you can imagine this went over -- extraordinarily popular. the firefighters' convention, right on the boardwalk, up 4000 firefighters at 2:00 on a friday afternoon. lunch was not -- they were fired up and ready to go.

they were booing me like crazy. governor, i am sorry, the guys are a little bit upset about your proposal. my staff had some talking points. i have to do something dramatic. i took the talking points and i threw them away. it did not work. [laughter] i said, let it out. finally, i said, you guys can do better than that. and they did. finally, the exhausted themselves. literally. i said, here is all i have to say you. you know about my proposal. i am stand that you are angry and you feel betrayed and lied to. the reason you are angry and feel betrayed is because you had

every right to be angry. you have been betrayed and you have been lied to. governors of both parties for the last 20 years have promised to things they knew they could not pay for. they lied to you to get your votes and you voted for them. now you are angry. i do not blame me. here is the one thing i did not get. why are you do in the first guy that comes in here to tell you the truth? -- booing the first guy that comes in here to tell you the truth? i will be done in 2017. there is no political upside. here is what i will tell you. if these reforms get past, 10 years from now, when you retire, you'll be able to get health benefits for your family, you will be on the internet looking for my home address to send me a thank-you note. we did 30 town hall meetings across new jersey.

this was not just pro at taxpayer. it was pro-new jersey economy, and it was pro-union worker. believe it or not, in june of 2011, with only one-third of the democrats in the senate and one- third of the democrats in the assembly, along with all the republicans, we passed that pension and benefit reform package, saving $132 billion over the next 30 years for the taxpayers of our state and securing the future of the pension health benefit programs. we did that because my friend was courageous. he stood up with a minority of his caucus. he sponsored the bill and make sure it got the votes. an african-american woman from

the essex county, are most democratic county, stood up, and voted for the bill, opposed the bill with only one-third of for caucus supporting her. -- posted the bill with only one-third of per caucus supporting her. i agree with steve, leadership counts. what do we see in new jersey? we are now in a budget situation where we are not dealing with multibillion-dollar deficits. i was able to propose a budget this year, the first income-tax cut in new jersey and over 15 years. a 10% across-the-board income- tax cut. you expect the democrats would be arguing with me about it. the majority of democrats are saying, we have to cut taxes. they're just argue with me about how to cut the taxes. you know what that means.

what matters is we have changed a place like new jersey to understand the very principles that the president was talking about when he stood up here a few minutes ago. if you want to grow jobs in new jersey, you have to leave more money in the hands of the people create those jobs. since i have become governor, we have created 75,000 private- sector jobs. we have cut the public sector. there are fewer public employees today than january of 2001. less government workers than 11 years ago. you have to do both. if you want the private sector to grow, you have to take money out of the public sector. we cannot run deficits at the

state levels. all of my fellow governors and know that. we have the obligation to make those tough choices. we're trying to set the example for the rest of the country. if you can do it in new jersey, c'mon. com on, seriously? -- come on, seriously? i will trade my right arm to be on tennessee and oklahoma. if you can do this in new jersey, you can do it anywhere. you can do it in washington, d.c., most importantly. what we need again is some leadership that is not going to take no for an answer. leadership who understands

that these things happen in new jersey not is because our ideas are right, but because we have developed relationships with the other side of the aisle but allows them to trust us. that does not happen overnight. day after day after day, if you have to sit with your colleagues and convince them of the goodness of your spirit. the understanding that compromise is not a dirty word. as governors, what we know is that there is always a boulevard between compromising your principles and getting everything you want. in new jersey, i abandoned the getting everything you want things along time ago. but i refuse to compromise my principles. when i want to build a tunnel to the basement of macy's and stick the new jersey taxpayers with a bill, no matter how much the

administration yells and screams, you have to say no. you have to look them right in the eye and say no. you have to be willing to say no to those things that compromise your principles. there is a boulevard, between getting everything you want and compromising your principles. it is our job to find a way on to the boulevard. to never forget that what we got sent into office to do was to get things done. not to send out press releases, not to just posture. i love all those things. [laughter] we cannot just do that. at the end of that, you have to find a way to make progress. the 4% solution, a 4% growth is not going to be achieved if we do not deal with medicare. it is not going to be achieved if we do not deal with medicaid. if we do not deal with social security.

4% is not going to be achieved unless we can credibly advocate for pro-growth tax policies because we have our fiscal house in order. for all of us who believe that the policies the president advocated and spoke about today are the right policies, we know that job one is to be credible with the people of our state and our country that we will be responsible stewards of the money they already sent us. i would intend to you that we are still a distance from making that case. -- content to you that we are still a distance from making that case. we have a lot more work to do. a lot more work to do. in the end, for the people of my state, they do not always agree with everything i do.

they certainly do not always agree with the way i say it. what they notice, i am telling them the truth as i see it. i am not looking to be loved. i think politicians get themselves into the biggest trouble when they care more about being loved than being respected. that is why we run up these deficits. that is why we cannot say no to anything. i am loved enough at home. believe me. on occasion. [laughter] my mother told me a long time ago, if you have the choice between being loved and being respected, take a respected. if you are respected, true love may happen. she was talking about women. i think it applies to politics. if you get people to respect you, you are willing to say no, but you are also willing to

listen, you are willing to stand hard and principles that you of articulated to the public comment but willing to compromise when those principles will not be violated, then respect will,. -- will come. even those who do not agree with me know that when i look them at the eye and tell them i will do something, i do it. regardless of the political cost. i tell them i am not gonna do something, i want. regardless of the political expediency. on the door of my senior staff's office is, the inside of their door, they have reprinted a headline from a new york magazine profile they did on me. i always worried -- the headline on this story was "the answer is no."

when the lobbyists, man and a close the door to have the meeting, they say, a turnaround. that is from the boss. and then we can say yes to the right things. to cut in taxes, to lower in regulation, to empower the people of the state and country to be optimistic again. i have never seen a less optimistic time in my lifetime in this country. people wonder why. i think it is simple. government is telling them, stop dreaming, stop striving, we will take care of you. we are turning into a paternalistic entitlement society. that will not just to bankrupt

us, financially, it will bankrupt us morally. when the american people no longer believe that this is a place where only their willingness to work hard and to act with honor and integrity and ingenuity determines their success in life, we will have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for the next government check. new jersey moved in that direction. we are moving away from that direction. i would urge all of you, the only way to fix that is by electing strong leaders in every state house across america to set the example and to set a fire underneath washington, d.c., that they will not be able to ignore. we're trying to do that every day in new jersey. we're comfortable in being judged. we will be judged on the basis of the decisions we have made

and the record we have created. i hope we will be one of the flagships in the bush institute 4% growth plan because if we are, -- it will mean there will be more money, more hope, or aspirations in the hearts of our children and grandchildren than there are today. that is what will make the 21st century the second american century. that will allow big united states to export hope and liberty and freedom around the world, not by just saying it, but by living it. every day and the way we conduct ourselves on the way we govern ourselves. mr. president, thank you for setting that example. thank you for inspiring a whole new generation of conservative republican leaders who you helped to create.

so many of us who sit in the state houses today are products of your leadership, your willingness to give us a chance to make a difference in our country and your administration and now to make a difference in our states and a country and in the world because of the opportunity you gave us. thank you very much. [applause] >> coming up, supreme court justices ruth bader ginsburg, sonia sotomayor, and elena kagan paid tribute to sandra day o'connor. the former justice is celebrating the 30th anniversary of for appointment to the u.s. supreme court.

live coverage on c-span2 at 6:30. on c-span, at 7:00, more campaign 2012 coverage. the indiana senate republican debate. that is live on c-span beginning at 7:00 eastern. taking as up to 7:00, "washington journal" spotlight on magazines focused on the national review's article on john allen. this is 30 minutes.

host: president obama has promised to withdraw troops by 2014. what is in john allen's mind? guest: general allen is a troop leader. he said, i'm not above americans fighting this war anymore. i am about turning this war over to the afghans. he is focused on turning the war over to the afghan security forces. host: here is what our guest writes --

host: tell us more about who general allen is. he is not as known as general petraeus and other leaders. guest: john allen is a marine troop commander who came from april school and was looking to go to princeton but decided he would go to the naval academy. the marines always seem to be in the thick of battle. his father and teachers fought in world war ii with great distinction.

he decided he wanted to be a marine. he got caught up in leading troops and he loved it. he is intellectual. he studies problems and listens very carefully and he has no pride of authorship. he will take an idea and he could say, we will go with your idea. he is courteous unless the bureaucracy take care of what a bureaucracy will take care of. he focuses on what the commander is supposed to do. he has about eight hours a week when he speaks to nobody.

those hours where he is pondering these problems so he is not always getting pushed around by the staff. i have compared how he spends time at all other chief officers spent their time, it is pretty similar. he spends about half his time out in the field with his troops. the other half of time he spends with the boards of trustees -- the congress, the president. but the difference is that insistency it is he has a little bit of time and he is thinking about the problems. host: bing west is a military analyst and served during the reagan administration. it's been a vice president of the hudson institute and joins us from providence, rhode island.

guest: basically i'm a marine. a marine grunt. host: let's go to the lines. we're talking about general john allen. our guest has a piece called "the last military commander." what does he see in terms of the parallels of american history? guest: he looks mostly at the civil war leaders and the leaders during world war ii when they did not control completely the outcome.

he understands that how afghanistan turns out depends on the afghans and no longer depends upon the americans. all he can do is try to set them up. he looks to leaders in the past who had an experience where they have been trying to tell people, you can do it. allen cannot do it with his own troops for them. we're not totally leaving them. "can you inject into other is a feeling that they can handle the job?" host: julie from milwaukee. caller: hi. we should not be in afghanistan. host: what we do about that now?

caller: it is none of our business what they do. i think we should pull out. guest: julie, we are. i get what julie is saying. i get it. we're there because we were attacked in new york city and 3000 americans were murdered. that's why we went to afghanistan, to get this people that are killing us. president obama said there is a limit to this. i agree with you, julie. in our first call, if i had told you or any of the listeners in 2001 that we would not be attacked in the united states of america.

we have al qaeda on the defense. we can get out most of our forces from afghanistan. we have been successful in what we wanted to do as a country and that is to protect ourselves. host: susan writes in on twitter. let's get to that last line. how does general allen viewing giving control to the afghans? guest: he said there are four vectors that are going to determine the outcome.

the first is the political will of the united states. afghanistan is going to need $5 billion to tender in dollars a year after 2014 -- $10 billion. then he said pakistan. pakistan is 5,000 miles along the border with afghanistan and it is a century for the taliban. the only thing he can control is whether afghanistan has a border that can stand up and secure the country. if the afghan army does not hold together, and nothing else will hold together.

caller: sir, you are being disingenuous. people were forced into war so they can bankrupt the people. that is basically what is happening right now. now we have the patriot act. these guys have been planning this for a long time. guest: well, if they can begin planning in 1920 and we are now in 2012, they are pretty old. host: rick from new york, republican. caller: i almost thought the guy on tv was -- but now bush

had orders to go in to afghanistan on september 10, the day before 9/11. bring the troops home and secure the borders here. host: ron paul has called for more of a domestic best center policy in bringing troops home. guest: i'm not a political commentator. i have no concept of that. i spend my time on the battlefields. everybody can say, let's go home. if you're a global power and you have a global economy, no sensible person will say, let's go back home and see what happens.

that would be like saying, take your economy and just have it in the united states of america. that's not how the world this. the odds of that happening is zero. host: john allen was speaking about the transition that is taking place in getting the afghan security forces up and ready. [video clip] >> i meant what i said about transition being the linchpin of our success. the first of these was to keep up the pressure on the enemy and we have done that. missing were sharply on our efforts to grow and to develop the capabilities. they're better than we thought there would be at this point.

the bravery and skill which they demonstrated when they attempted to quell the violence, bravery the cost them two lives and more than 60 wounded. they conduct alongside troops and often in the lead every month as we go forward. afghan security forces on their own arrested more than 50 and killed half a dozen insurgents. over more than 20 operations, they have captured several caches of explosives. the police, too, have been contributing to the security in the cities and towns.

host: general john allen talking about the transition. what do you make of his comments? guest: i do not know. i do not think any reasonable person knows how afghanistan is going to turn out because it depends on what happens after we are not there. bele we're there, it will relatively stable. the ansf, afghan national security forces, are getting better. the real test is when they have to clash with the taliban without us being with them. that's a trouble dynamic no american can understand because we're not part of those

tribes. the tribe between pakistan and afghanistan and they are the taliban. they believed they should be the dominant tribe in afghanistan and they are about 30% of the population. then you have other tribes. they are mounted into the army. a question, will afghanistan go back to travel arrangements or will the army have a cohesiveness to it that causes the army would different tribes to remain in one area where the fight is against the taliban? i say we will not know until happens.

the army is getting better. will it be good enough in another two years? he believes it will. host: let's hear from richard. caller: what have we won in vietnam and in afghanistan? i think the only people that have won anything are the defense contractors. we spend $160 million per aircraft. guest: you have covered several different subjects. defense contracting -- i do not know.

i fought in vietnam as a marine. i understand quite a bit about the fighting there. vietnam was 30 years ago -- 40 years ago. you cannot coinjoin vietnam, iraq, and afghanistan. iraq -- i think we walked away too quickly from iraq. why did two different presidents -- president obama did not want these wars the way they were fought in iraq. he said it was the good war in afghanistan. if you go back and remember how this started. it started because we were attacked. we have nothing to apologize for in defending ourselves.

it is resemble that we can seem to hunt down al qaeda terrorists who want to kill us. host: there's a story in "the washington post" today. host: how much to someone like general allen think about histories per trail of what happened in the war and what his obligation is to the president and to the men and women who serve over there?

guest: secretary of defense mcnamara against the war -- i think that is a disgrace. if you did not want to stay there, do not stay as secretary of defense. i think general allen would associate with the end of the statement, his obligation to his troops. i was asking him -- or you on this -- where are you on this? "i have a solemn obligation when i tell my commander in chief to believe that i can achieve it or come back and telling what need in order to achieve it."

i think he is dead serious about that. he is not trying to achieve victory? he is trying to achieve heading off the war to the afghans. the moment of crunch will be at the end of this year, general allen said he will sit down with the white house and he will put forth his plan for how they go forward and the president will review the option and will now in about a year from now what president obama is thinking how he will wrap this up. in the end, the president is the commander and chief of all our forces. it is not general allen. host: ron is a republican in

california. caller: good morning. assuming the plan goes as planned and we do pull out of afghanistan, what are the chances that the pakistanis will support that 1500-mile border that they have? will they support what is going on with the united nations or the u.s. effort? that is my question. thank you. guest: ron, it is extremely complex -- pakistan is playing a double game and we know it and they know it. in the end, they are not going to clean out the centaurus in the mountains on the west of the country and on the east of

afghanistan. it would be too difficult to do. i did nothing their heart is into doing it. pakistan will remain amber, if you will. it will not be your friend or your enemy. the afghans have to reach some sort of the settlements that will not be able to understand those settlements that the make among themselves. but that's not our main point. our main point -- the terrorists who want to kill us. even after 2014, i think we have built up a terrific special operations force. i think the cia has done a good job in terms of the spy system.

supposedly al qaeda has said no members of al qaeda can go to outside house in pakistan. they are afraid of us being able to see them from overhead and striking them. i think we will continue to be on the offense against those who are most dangerous to us even when we continue to have a mess in afghanistan and pakistan. there are limits to our power. jobink we're doing a good and will continue to, the one pakistan remains not quite our friend or enemy. host: we have a comment on twitter. our guest is bing west,

military analyst perry he was the assistant defense secretary in the reagan administration. he was vice president of the hudson institute. we're talking about a story in "national review," looking at general john allen. he talked about advisers and the key role that advisers are playing are going to play in afghanistan. you write this --

guest: yeah. i've made about six dozen trips to iraq and afghanistan -- about two dozen trips. i did not spend time in headquarters. i was an adviser in vietnam in a small village with a dozen marines. the biggest issue is that the americans bring cunning battlefield. they're pretty clever out there. bring fire support, medical evacuation, a willingness to fight.

afghans, they are fighters. what we do not have control of are the leaders of the afghan army. we're over there fighting but we cannot say who should be promoted in their army and who should be fired for being an incumbent officer. it is all mixed up. he did not have direct authority to say, you have to get rid of that leader because he is not a good leader. things are getting better. i believe that's after 2014, we will need 4,000 advisers in the field. when people say we're getting out of combat, the president has not define that yeah. they believe we will keep a residual force to be anywhere

from 10,000 to 40,000 troops after 2014 and some of them will still be in combat. host: let's hear from chris. caller: i want to thank you for your service to our country. we appreciate what you've done with your life. we say we attacked afghanistan because they attacked us. that is not true. george w. bush is a war mongerer. we need to put this squarely on george w. bush. host: what would you prefer have happened? caller: we could get used

military strikes against al qaeda. we did not have to go into afghanistan to achieve our goals. guest: ok, chris, but you would have attacked al qaeda, way or another. i have not been kind enough books to president bush for different reasons. president bush was quite sure years ago. president obama has been the president for four years. he stayed and he increased the number of troops. transcends democrats and republicans. common sense tells us that if this were not a republican in

the white house, he would be getting much more criticism than president obama is from the democratic party. we are in this together, a democrat an republicand together. gradually get out over the next two years. general allen is the right man to do this. host: let's let us some numbers from operations in during freedom. these are the deaths and casualties. host: how much do these numbers of fact or inspire at general allen?

guest: i think i've seen him do a couple of things that i thought were terrific in terms of going back and looking at records that others have overlooked and recommend the people, including recommending a captain for the medal of honor that was richly deserved when he had been overlooked for two years. allen watches out for its troops. it really gets to me. i get to know these men and women when i'm out there. i see them killed or amputated. i want out of there as fast as possible and of the afghans fight their own fight.

we have to do this in a prudent way. we cannot get too hung up the defects of maliki or karzai and the afghan politics. we have to keep a larger perspective that those who have died did not die in vain. if i had said to anybody in 2001 that 10 years later there would not have been another attack on the united states, most of you would say that you're wrong. we did take the war on offensively to al qaeda. we are safer today than we were in 2001 and we're on our way to crushing al qaeda. i think overall that would have done a successful job with our military. host: you talk about how general allen is not talking in terms of winning a war.

his metric for success is a little different. what will be the signs that it worked? guest: if it did not work, you have a radical government come to power again in afghanistan, in kabul and support al qaeda the way the taliban did in 2001. i would give that a low probability. could you be like colombia in south america where they have been battling for 30 years and continue to battle, then yes.

i will not be here 20 or 25 years from now. if i got wrong, i got it wrong. what do we care? there is fighting all around the world. can we live with different tribes in afghanistan fighting each other? sure. i don't know what it looks like 20 or 25 years from now so i will cite it will probably be shooting each other. but as long as we are not involved in it, i'm willing for them to shoot each other. host: we have a comment on twitter. respond in terms of what we're leaving behind.

walk us through that. guest: we still have some troops in germany. we have troops in japan. we have embassies in 144 countries. the measure cannot be whether or not you still have some troops somewhere. a global power will have troops in different places. question is the stability and that they are not involved in combat day after day. i believe the residual force in 2015 will still be involved in combat. i do not know when that will end. there is some misperceptions about whether we have worn out our force.

in 2006, with the bottom in terms of wearing out are forced. we have many more volunteers than there are spaces. i can imagine you would have anywhere from 10,000 to 3000 americans left in afghanistan after 2014 -- 10,000 to 30,000 americans. host: 1 final tweet. it talks about how general allen is talking about the long- range in afghanistan. guest: well, we have not been defeated. wherever we go, first units that are pulling out. the marines went in there and

said nobody can do anything with helmand. they have wrapped up the mission. we can do those kind of things. wherever we go, we dominate in afghanistan today. we want to come home. it is time that we disengage. we have secured those areas. will the afghans be able to keep them secure? i don't think any reasonable person can predict what afghanistan is going to look like in 2015.

there is a very good chance that the terrorist will not have a sanctuary in afghanistan. host: can general allen save afghanistan? wrong question. thank you for joining us. >> april 15, 1912, nearly 1500 perished on the ship called unsinkable. >> once the bells were sounded, they struck the bell's three times. it is a warning, saying that there is some object ahead. it does not say what kind of object. what the lookout then did comment -- then did, he called down to the officer on the bridge. when it was answered, the entire

conversation was, what do you see? icebergs right ahead. the response from the officer, thank you. >> on the truth and myths of that night. >> up next, live coverage of an indiana senate republican primary debate. candidates are holding their only debate prior to the indiana primary on may 8. this debate is from wfyi

but welcome to the u.s. senate candidates. this is by the indiana debate commission pictures i am from the department of telecommunications. i will be our moderator. >> they will ask questions. it is bridg

immediately next to me is a richard mourdock and next to him is richard lugar. have agreed to the rules. here are the highlights. our plan is to give them two minutes for every answer. we may need to shorten that for a bit. after that, i will announce the shorter time window. i make that up the candidates who goes past the allotted time. a committee of the debate commission reviews the questions. it is thought of by more than a dozen non-partisan groups in 2007. they have agreed not to use

props. after this began, we break our studios on the governing rules. there's to listen quietly. they will each have 30 seconds to introduce themselves. >> good evening. it is great to be with you. thank you for turning in. it is an equally good in the marketplace. in this debate, they you will while we are both republicans, we will agree and disagree on much. >> i think the committee for the opportunity to talk about the new farm bill.

we will work to make sure we have the keystone pipeline. thank you. >> just a word about the picture you're seeing. this is the traditional format. it'll make it accessible to every television station in indiana. there is nothing wrong with your television set. >> we have divided up to that debate into three separate areas. all are directly related to jobs. we will begin with jobs. poll after poll, voters tell what it is still an issue. voter.o to our first

he is a real-estate agent from indianapolis. >> the last time gas prices reached current levels, oil was close to $150 a barrel. why is the price at the pump so high? can anything be done about it? >> first thank you for the question. i happen to have spent 31 years in the private sector before i got into politics. i love any question about it. it is a great question. a lot of these prices of crude oil went up faster than gasoline when it hit $150 a carol. the bigger reason is because of government -- a barrel. the bigger reason is because of government regulation. there have been refinery shutdown in the united states.

did the demand for gasoline continues to go up even as demand for crude oil has stabilized. what we also did not notice was last year at the end of the year, the price of ethanol went away. they mandated that more at about the added to regular gasoline. for most of us, we certainly object to it in the health-care area. more ethanol is the mandated into their gasoline. to get the price of gasoline back down, we certainly have to do more to get the epa off the backs of the refineries so we can increase. >> mr. lugar.

>> the price of gasoline is much lower than the cost of ethanol. $3.4 billion worth of business -- essentially, the price of gasoline is not going to go down. tensions in the middle east, the straits in particular, have been going down. as a result, there are adequate supplies right now in united states. there is the logistics of moving the refined product. i am grateful that is the case.

in the markets today, oil was closer to $101 instead of $150. i agree that the regulation by government is the problem in terms of logistics as well as the entire energy business. we really have to have been drilling in the united states, a drilling off our coasts. the pipeline will give $20,000 and lots of the product in the united states. if you have a rebuttal, you have 30 seconds. >> the price of gasoline has gone up the center says because

of ethanol going down. the price of ethanol is to dollars and 40 cents a gallon. as a mandate it, -- is $2.40 a gallon. as the mandate, it goes up. >> economics the overall price go down. ares years -- hoosiers producing it on farms here. >> national polls tell us that concern is the economy and job growth. they want to know what you would do as a senator, what would you propose about what congress to to increase the number of available jobs? >> there is overregulation by

the federal government. it is a burden placed upon businesses that want to raise money from new capital sources. it is a very tough battle. overregulation is everywhere. during the obama administration, i get the feeling that folks are trying to control business. after that is done, businesses are beginning to dry. manufacturing is coming back. the jobs that are available -- i applaud the work of a bridging the gap between those who want the jobs in the companies want to employ them. i have seen this wonderful

medical device. these are companies hiring people. they have the foresight to be able to train people on the job. this is absolutely critical in terms of actually getting people into the jobs and to get the job done. fundamentally, our entire educational system in indiana is the heart of the matter, getting students prepared now in math and science, these are things that will make a big difference in the future of hoosier businesses. >> the most import thing we can do to start the economy is to roll back the size of government. the regulatory environment is out of control. we have to do several things as

a nation. we have to do them in a hurry. we have to reduce the level of debt we're caring in this country. we are pulling money out of the economy that otherwise could be going back in am bringing new products into line with 21st century demands. we have to get better regulations of the necks of small businesses. they think they have met all the roles. then the government changes the rules on them again. it is not fair to them. it is causing more than to leave our shore. that is a bad sign for america. a few weeks ago, it is reported the net inflow of investment capital and now could united states went negative. from the beginning of our country, there has been more

money coming in from businesses and going out. for the first time, there's more going out. converse has not done nearly enough -- congress has not done nearly enough. they will not roll it back. they are not going forward. they are not expressing the oversight we need to get our economy rolling again. >> those of us who are now serving tried to do the rollbacks and the protests. they have limited success. they called for additional comments by voters. and they actually get some

traction in the congress to roll back some of the regulations. >> i do not hear nearly enough of that except the campaign -- in campaign speeches. it and do not think we're doing that. i more frustrated with republicans today than democrats. i want to see republicans out making the fight in going back to their district and making the argument why we need to roll back government. >> our next question is from a voter here from harlem. foryou both state you're cutting spending. what would you do, particularly in the areas of taxation and entitlement spending? >> i lost my place.

>> thank you for the question. we have to start rolling back the size of government. your question comes at the heart of it. it is about the dollars. during this debate, the government will spend $167 million more than it takes in. that much more goes into our debt in this hour. we have to roll back those costs throughout government. every administration talks about it. they seem to do very little about it. in november when the super committee was arguing about the finest way to cut $1.20 trillion. i not have all the budget tools they have. i found ways to reduce 7.6 million over the next 10 years. that is draconian. i do not think so. they cannot find a way to cut.

it represents less than 10% of spending. there's did from a commerce, education. there is some constitutionally mandated ones that could be a sign. they go back to the defense department. we have to take a broad stance in the government. let's not forget the biggest issue out there is entitlement. we have to get a handle on that. we have to tell people they have a different set of expectations. those are the aged 55 -- over the age of 55 have made a promise -- have been made a promise by government. we need to honor that promise. it is immoral for the united states government to do that. >> there has been no budget in

the federal government. invade because of the enthusiasm for doing this. in large republican majority came in 2010. this brought about the possibility to become chairman of the budget committee in house. they have the support of the majority of republicans. this was a remarkable plan was spending cuts over the course of time. they go back toward responsible government. he talks about medicare. he is going to have medicare.

all the democrats voted against it. our leader mitch mcconnell said let a vote on the obama budget. people said what in the world is that? all republicans and democrats voted against it. thank goodness ryan had hisb back. i commend him purity as set forth how the cuts can score predicament him. he has set forth how the cat can -- i commend him. he has set forth how the cuts can occur. it is very important that we get a budget this year despite democratic opposition. i will continue to fight to do so. >> i am glad to have the rebuttal for this question. it is so important.

we agree it is a travesty that the president cannot present a budget. we do have a chance to grow this economy. that has to be our goal. we have to be growing our gdp 3.5% a year. as horrible as our debt is today, we can pay that off. we have to be looking to reduce the size of government now so we can grow the economy to get the job done. >> we need to make sure that these so-called bush tax cuts remain. the democrats are pushing back into the post-election session. i want to cut corporate taxes so they are in line competitively with the rest of the world. that would be important with people offering more jobs right now. >> our next question is in the area of foreign affairs.

we turn to a physician who speaks to us from greenwood. >> please explain what steps you feel need to be done to stop nuclear weapon proliferation by recognized countries and the terrorist groups. >> that goes to senator lugar. >> it has been my privilege for the last 20 years with the reduction act to a first of all work with people in russia to take warheads off of missiles and get the missiles down and then to work for the weapons of the destruction and thin chemical and biological area. we're destroying the nerve gas scells. we have about 5000 warheads to go in russia. beyond that, we have all the nuclear out of the ukraine and istkan. s and

we of trying to get some inoculation against potential plague. al qaeda could have scooped it up. we're working with those governments to try to bring security there so it does not come to the united states. we have a very strong foreign- policy position with stations in iran. we're working hard to get this with north korea. we're trying to work with the pakistani so there is security for their weapons. india and pakistan both have weapons. now the difficulties are obvious. all over the world there are problems. i worked with my former colleagues with representatives

in many countries to make sure all of us are alert to this possibilities and that we're doing the things properly in our department of defense and department of energy that are required to bring about maximum security for americans in the world. >> i mentioned at the beginning of my statement that when i was asked by a state committee members to run for this office i was somewhat surprised. one reason why is all of us have great respect for senator lugar's time, especially in this area. i do not have nearly the access to the in-depth information he has. we do have to understand that what has been going on as a result of lugar, we're also sending money into russia and the nations of the old soviet union. today some of that money is going from russia to syria. syria has been helping iran. iran is developing nuclear

weapons. it is a proliferation problem. it is a greater problem than simply trying to come back from where we were with the nations of the old soviet union. the first thing we have to do to be effective is to be information that leads, not trying to lead from behind like the obama administration is doing. if we want a place at the world table where there are so many rogue states trying to get nuclear weapons, and when we see iran with the weapons, we cannot withdraw from the world. we have to deal from a position of strength. we must be verifying what is out there. we need to do more to bring those weapons under control. it has been sad that the sanctions that sinister kyle has tried to bring forward had unilateral sanctions against iran and syria to something

senator lugar was still opposing. i think there times when need to act unilaterally to put the pressure on the nation's to make sure we care about world peace and we do not want to see the nations develop nuclear arms. >> i work every day with jon kyl. he is a partner with regard to all of this. the united states have sanctions. we are the one guy eating iran and european rights coming into it. -- -aiding iran and european rights coming into it. others are undercutting those efforts. that will require some strong diplomacy. >> that is right. the russian and chinese are undercutting. we're hearing from nations like vietnam and the philippines, looking for more support like us. they see china's influence setting. that is why we need to not leave

from behind. >> america has been at war for more than 10 years because of our involvement in iraq and afghanistan. given that we have a plan for leaving afghanistan, is it time to further decrease our overall military presence abroad? are there other areas where our military presence is needed now or might be needed in the near future? >> to the first part of that question, there was an inexcusable foreign policy failure in our withdraw from iraq. we put into iraq winning the freedom for the country hundreds of billions of dollars and over 4400 american lives. when we withdrew, we did not

make a name for ourselves. we did not maintain any type of air space user any type of bases in a volatile part of the world. this is an oversight that they should have been insisting from the obama administration. in afghanistan, people are tired of having our troops there. i to family members there tonight. we cannot just -- have two family members there tonight. we cannot just turn tail and run. it to become a more dangerous place. pakistan already has nuclear weapons. we cannot leave from behind. the united states is in its finest role. i appreciate than trying to get the obama administration to move forward to bring some sense of peace in a vital area of the world. >> it is important to say that

our strategy as a country is undergoing a turn that is important. we wall tried to secure it afghanistan with the help of afghans that are going to have to secure their own territory. as a result we are going to use covert means and the ability to send rockets into particular areas and knock out al qaeda or the taliban. we're going to use intelligence resources more skillfully. the problem of al qaeda is not simply that now in afghanistan or in iraq or throughout the

middle east we are fortifying. we trying to look at the whole picture. it is a very vigorous effort. it is one that is going to require a great deal of thoughtful consideration by the congress as well as the administration. the logistic support of our people in afghanistan is difficult given the pakistani opposition. it was impossible to get support the amountsin we used to. we have to devise other strategies. i look forward to working with our military services to try to support this in a sophisticated way how they will be able to do this with your american boots on the ground and more success with intelligence and drone be

strike. >> we'll move on to the next questions. where does russia fit these days? is it a friend or a kodak >> russia is neither a friend or or foe?riencd >> rest is neither french niendr foe. we have come a long way. the russians were bankrupt. russians came and said officers are not getting paid. there are deserting us. they may be taking weapons out. it is a total counterintuitive position that we would disarm it. that is what we have been doing.

i would like to continue to work on it. i believe the job needs to be done. that continues on with in and out of vladimir putin and various others you still have an authoritarian government. many russians are now in the streets. they're demonstrating that they really what some liberalization of all of this. i think they're going to obtain it. we ought to be working very closely with those groups in in russia and with the communication system there to inform people in russia what the possibilities are working with us for democracy and human rights. there are great possibilities. we're going to have a tough negotiating situation with folks that still have weapons of mass destruction and to do not wish as well. i would simply say that this is going to call for very strong diplomacy. likewise, armed forces that are

adequate to be impressive to our russian friends. >> he said that most as they do not work with us. in the beginning he said they were neither friend nor foe. i think they are more friends. it is russia right now. they're having some influence working with the chinese and vietnamese. in iran and syria they are problematic. did the money is we put into russia are fungible and thing go into part of the world -- the monies we put into russia are fungible and go into that part of the world. when the treaty was signed a year and a half ago, there with a sense of a new era with the russians. the ins and outs of vladimir putin make it a variable

question. is this the same russia that not many years ago decided to turn off the pipeline into georgia, and the country of the old soviet bloc. did they went in and occupied it. they said they were going to leave. they have not left. when the treaty was being negotiated, the russian said it had to be signed december 31, 2010 or they were going to walk away. i have negotiated a lot of contracts. anytime someone says it has to be done by that date is always a better deal from the -- for them than us. we have to be a strong nation. we cannot withdraw from the world. the senate foreign relations committee have got to present more oversight to an administration should the obama administration continue past 2013. >> i managed the start treaty.

thank goodness it past when it did. we had no american boots on the -- star treaty. goodnessness' i -- thank it passed when it did. we have no american but on the ground. we have full control of what we are doing in disarming the russians. we need to maintain that. >> the very definition of a fungible means money can go other places. it offsets money. all money is fungible. that is a fact. to a broader point, one of the things the obama administration did to win republican votes was to say if they would vote for it, there would be more money to upgrade our weapons system. they have reneged on that. what our next question comes

from a retired accountant from indianapolis. what is your question? >> do you believe reform the medicare and medicaid is necessary for future deficit reduction? if you do, how would you propose to do it? >> that question was first to mr. mourdock. >> from the medicaid perspective, and the medicaid program that is out there today is something that is problematic given its huge cost. i support something a feller hoosier has presented to the house of representatives, a new bill that would allow states to have flexibility. it would freeze medicaid spending for 10 years and give the states greater flexibility in administering those funds. it would save $1.40 trillion over the next 10 years. to medicare, i absolutely

believe there is a fundamental social contract that government makes with its citizens. those citizens to have worked most of our working lives in knowing what it would be, that has to be honored for those over the age of 55. i do believe we have to start setting a different set of expectations. it is immoral to deliver promises you cannot keep. the government is taking a larger and larger role. what we have to do is provide a way that americans have greater access to health care savings accounts. they need wider contribution limits. we also need a health care system that allows for crossing of lines by insurance companies.

we need systems that will have more pulls for insurance purposes so there are greater economies of scale. we must repeal obamacare. it would be disastrous for health care in this country. >> mitch daniels has felt the state of indiana could better administer medicaid for a variety of reasons. i agree with regard to medicare and the ryan plan brought this to the florid that the 55 and over situation is probably a reasonable division line and that the planning for those under 55 knees to begin immediately. -- needs to begin immediately

because we cannot afford the escalating cost of medicare. when you consider that social security, medicare, medicaid, and the defense budget are a 70%-75% of the whole picture, there has to be reaction taken. this is a good time to consider the medicare situation. i agree completely that obamacare should be repealed so we do not have interlocking problems with the rest of that. we then move toward the markets. we move toward insurance that can be offered across state lines in a much more competitive insurance market. these are important situations that lie before us. we can move on this much more rapidly. >> do you have a rebuttal? >> i would like to add a couple of things. i have talked to dozens of

doctors. the thing i hear is how the regulatory environment is keeping them from seeing patients. sure theneed to make electronic data base that let the most private health care records of every american go into a national data base, that must never go into a database. >> i am very hopeful in addition to all of that that we will begin to think about preventable -- preventative medicine and exercise and quality of life that makes a big difference in terms of our needs for health care later on. >> our next question comes from a semi retired pharmacist from lafayette. she could not be a tonight. social security will continue to be dependent upon by many middle

and low-income citizens. some sensible adjustments are to increase the age at which full benefits can be received. do you support these changes? >> i think those are changes that are going to be required very definitely. the question is how rapidly to escalate the situation? the plans i have seen to work through this would suggest that we ought to move to increase the amount be on $110,000 of wages on which so security is now figured. to do so incrementally and in various ways of this is not a great shock to those that are above 110,000. at the same time, we are going to have to think through how we change the age of retirement for

social security. many suggest maybe a few days or weeks of each year over the course of time so that this is not move rapidly. any movement of either the coverage levels or the age of retirement or other aspects will have huge impact with regard to a very large federal budget. the need to do this is apparent. it was apparent in 1983. i was among those debating the issue. we did save social security at that stage. it changes were controversial. they always are. it does need to happen. while we're thinking about medicare reform, we ought to think about social security reform.

we've already discussed medicaid reform. these are huge part of the entitlement picture that make a big difference in balancing the budget and moving from the trillions of debt that we now have a. >> there does need to be more protection offered to the social security system. today it is mathematical and not something that can continue. i do believe the retirement age will be raised. it is a necessity. it will have to happen in a step-by-step process. we need to let younger people know that they have a different set of promises. i think we need to provide them with a different set of promises. they also have an obligation to stay for themselves. social security was not meant to be a system upon which a person would tell the based their retirement. when this started, there were 66 people paying in. now it is a basically about

two-one --- 2 to 1. people need more incentives to save on their own as an option if they choose. this should be something people get to decide as their own choice. social security is something that needs to be protected, not just in the sense of what we do with the mathematical function to make sure enough money is coming in, but we need to make sure that congress is not constantly pulling money out a social security for other things. >> i agree about pulling the money out for other things. that does occur all the time. it is really unconscionable. it seems important to rejoice in the fact that americans are growing older. the tables have grown from americans are dying at 65 to

closer to 85 presently. that requires some very thoughtful work with regard to medicaid, medicare, and social security. >> we need to protect social security. there are at least two boats were he went the other way. -- two votes were he went the other way. i would have voted the other way. we need to provide the funds for older citizens. >> i did not have votes for illegal social security payments. >> next question. each of you professes to be a political conservative the disagree on many specific issues. how you define what it is to be a conservative? how would that affect your role as the united states senator?

>> that is a great question. you'll be glad to provide those vote numbers. i see myself as a conservative. the federal government need to be restricted and limited. we have grown to the point with our government today that i do not think our founding fathers would even begin to recognize this country for what they designed it to be. they expect to have a system where there be more power in the state and lessen the federal government. as every day goes by, we see more of varmints created for those that support washington d.c. is way overstated predict it is way overstated. there is only one area of where the residential housing values went up. that was in washington, d.c. government is growing ever greater. it is at the cost of

conservative values. they had this great genius to understand that they were not giving us freedom. it is something they recognize that god was giving us. they were influencing everyone's day to day life. that is what they set our government up to be. clearly, i want to move us back in the constitutional direction. >> i already have this opportunity. my voting record has well past 90%.

i would say that it is not by chance. i come from a situation in which i volunteered to serve the united states navy. i believe in the strength of united states. i worked with my brother to manage a manufacturing business. my grandfather founded a small business in which we learned how to create new jobs and markets. i've been managing my family farm for over 50 years. thinking about corn and soybean prices every day and try to think through how we can give greater yields on that land as farmers all over indiana have been doing.

it is the work we have been doing in the economy and to bring security to america. i appreciate questions. we understand conservative values. it is from limited government. some of us actually have to vote for these principles. i look forward to these opportunities each day. >> i wonder if you might clarify something. i believe what i have been hearing from you is small government and lower taxes. i've not heard you mention social conservatism. >> i believe that life begins at conception. i've been endorsed by the indiana right to life. i believe a person's individual faith, especially for those of us in government. i would like to go back to the purpose of government.

we hear a lot about businesses interacting. that is ok. businesses should not be depending on government. this thing that has developed, a crony capitalism, where they are depending more on government is the opposite of conservatism. >> i am a social conservative. i believe strongly in marriage and children and family values. i have 100% record with the right to life group. i believe this is part of being a conservative. i appreciate your question of raising that issue. >> we need to shorten your responses just a little bit so we can get everything in. joanne is a retired perdue university employee. i guess he did not have that tape. how best to you see the nation, state and local communities providing reproductive health

care services? >> how best do you see the nation and state and local communities providing reproductive health care services for men and women of all ages? >> i am not certain i understand reproductive health care services. we have been debating in the senate the fact that we do not think the federal government ought to be involved in reproductive health. i take that position. that would be my answer. >> i think i will do a ditto. that is not an area where the federal government should be involved. they need to be part of individual responsibility and initiative. >> let me go back to foreign affairs. you were in such agreement on this matter.

there are a couple of issues here. israel is threatening to strike iran which is perceived by the world to develop nuclear weapons capability. north korea already has nuclear weapons capabilities and are on the verge of firing a long-range rocket. what do you do about those folks? >> to the first part of your question, we have a fundamental packed with the state of israel that we must honor. they are certainly are most important ally in the middle east. the fact that they are talking up attacking iran is a matter of self-defense. i certainly want to see a stand with israel. i want to see more sanctions against iran. they believe that is our best way to roll back that threat.

iran continues. administration sat on their hands and not get involved. we have a chance to seek a more friendly nation come up and to see off mended rishaad replaced. --, did rishaad -- ahmadinajas replaced. >> we're discussing is real situation and hours. the israeli aircraft will depend on refueling as they get there and refueling on the way back. by us. this has to be a joint effort. fairlyerstands very fair the sanctions being placed on the economy. we really have to respect the fact that our alliance with

israel is at stake at this point. that will be critical. we really are at a point where we're trying to get the chinese involved. it is critical that we have some success there. there is no stopping for the moment. >> we are down to one minute, and no rebuttal. our last question consummate guest in the studio. he is a clergyman and an educator from indianapolis. >> how do you plan to represent the interests of the citizens of indiana and be a contributing political leader on domestic issues and a voice for the state and national interest in in global politics?

>> for many years i've attempted to do all the above in response to your very good question. >> you have two minutes for this. >> i will rebuttal. we have opportunities each day to think through our domestic politics in the sense of national politics. the implications of that come from the fact that we are leaders in the world. the only country that has a fleet to keep the high seas opened for everyone to have trade. we want the season opened. we are a country that trades back and forth much into the dynamics of our being able

to export our ideas. and likewise to bring people to the united states that have new ideas to reinforce all the vigor that we have here to. these are exciting opportunities to visit the people in this country and around the world and trying to fashion ways in which our country can be more effective in which hoosiers can be better served. >> this is the final question. >> is this the final question? >> it is. >> thank you for joining us. the first thing i'm going to do is to represent -- i'm going to do to represent hoosiers is to be them. i look forward to traveling the state. it is a place that i am not

moving from i would always call it home. -- i'm not moving from. i will always call it home. 100 years ago, a great ship was heading across the atlantic. it had an experienced crew. they were prepared. they did not see the danger of coming. the crew was not paying attention. they thought the crossing would be like the dozens of others they made. a few days later, they ended that jean forever. i bring you that story because in the last 30 years, they have gone on a dangerous course and journey. there are icebergs ahead. they are labeled a growing entitlement society. they're all these things that take away our freedom and limit the ability of hoosiers and

americans to respond to freedom in a way they can prosper and grow. i got in this race not because i ever had a lifelong ambition to be a senator, because i didn't and still do not, this is not the start of a career. i am richard mourdock and ask for your vote because what we have great respect for mr. lugar, we have differences. competition is a good thing. i do believe it is time. thank you. >> thank you both for sharing or thoughts with us this evening on the u.s. senate race. this has been sponsored by the indiana debate commission. our thanks also to the candidates staffs and to our hosts for this broadcast, wfyi. thank you thanks to the voters

to ask the questions. the primary election is coming up tuesday may 8. the commission plans to hold 3 debate in the race for governor this fall. for more information on the indian and debate commission, log onto www.indianadebatecommission.com. thanks for checking in. from indianapolis, good night.

>> this evening, remarks today from eric holder, speaking about race in the criminal-justice system. then george w. bush on the goals of his foundation. he also addresses the current economy and tax policy. chris christie on his efforts to balance the budget in new jersey. president obama discusses the buffett wrote. it would require millionaires to pay 30% of their income in taxes. >> are specific mission is to work to see that human rights

remain an essential component of american policy and that when we are evaluating this, human rights can never be the only consideration. it has to be part of the dialogue. >> katrina sweet is the president of the lantos foundation for justice. >> as we relate to torture or the policy with russia, the upcoming issue of whether or not the u.s. congress should pass the accountability act. we do not need to go into the details of the issue. whether or not we're going to stay on record as saying he ben wright matter in russia and china. >> more with katrina lantos swett. >>