[applause] would you comment on that? >> congress shall make no law -- stop right there. [laughter] i know that is unreasonable, so we will let them make some. the problem is congress is a legislative body just like every other legislative body. they do not think this law is for me, it is for everybody else. why read it? it is not for me. it is for somebody else. we do not need to know what is in it. they signed the patriot act. that was a law. nobody even could read it. making a constitutional amendment would -- to require it would be nice, but congress is not following the constitution now. [applause]

we can ask the same question -- should we have a balanced budget amendment? that would be nice, but congress don't follow the constitution now. it will be up to the american people to start electing people like libertarians who will go to washington, go to the state capital and do what they say they are going to do and not spend all their time in office paying off all the others in office. [applause] >> mr. johnson, would you comment -- it has been proposed and has supporters in congress -- the one subject at a time act? >> i would support the one subject at a time act. what we need is a precedent that is going to veto legislation with your marks in the legislation.

-- earmarks in the legislation. if a bill is 80% something i could support and 20% something i could not support, i would veto that legislation. i have to tell you about my experience in this area. i vetoed 750 bills while i was governor of new mexico. [applause] i want to put this into context. that was more legislation than the other 49 governors in the country combined. that did not happen in a vacuum. there was debate, discussion. the world was. 2 and tomorrow because of the bill that johnson vetoed today. i took on that debate and that discussion. i will tell you, 2-1, legislature and was a democrat. a third of the bills or

republican because republicans grew government just like democrats. [applause] just so there is no misunderstanding about who is up here talking to you, this is on official, but i believe i vetoed close to 100 bills where the vote in the legislature was close to 114-0. i vetoed the legislation and the veto stood because of the debate. [applause] >> on a related subject, mr. johnson, many pieces of legislation, some call it major legislation, are hundreds of thousands of pages long as opposed to the act. would you urge congress to pass

ct?""read the bills a this is proposed legislation that already has sponsors in congress that would require public reading and the public opportunity to read a bill before it is exercised. >> i would absolutely support the "it read the bills act," but here is what i did. when i vetoed those of 100 bills or the vote in the legislature was close to 114-0 -- by the way, only two of these bills was overridden. but here was my dialogue -- republicans, i do not think you have time to read this legislation, but i did and here's what it says. i think that it grows government. government becomes more interested. it will cost more money and time to comply with this. i am vetoing it. you go ahead and override, but

here are my reasons, and that legislation was not overridden. [applause] talking about legislation that has too many pages -- i and my first year as governor of new mexico, they said the 400 pieces of legislation. the majority of legislation that its past is legislation that exists prior legislation, okay? they sent me 400 bills the first year i was in office. i vetoed 200 of those bills. i always wrote a veto message. on one of the bills, i said this is a 260 page bill. it is too long. i do not have time to read it. vito. -- veto. [applause] >> i cannot believe i am going

to say this and some of you will not believe it when you hit it -- i finally found a law i kind of like. yes, i would support it. i would not have a whole lot of heart of it being followed, but i would support of that. we need to hold our represented is responsible for what they are doing up there. they need to take a lesson from individuals who have to be responsible for themselves. there is nothing worse than someone sitting in the position of a party with no incentive to do the right thing and no recourse for doing the wrong thing. let's start putting people in jail and see how they like that. if you are not doing what you are supposed to -- congress is not oblivious to going to jail. let's be -- let stand a few

senators and representatives to jail for not doing their jobs. maybe they will start doing their jobs a little bit better. i have to read them, they have to read them, too. [applause] i cannot believe my tom did not jump out of my mouth when i said i agreed with a lot. -- my tongue did not jump out of my mouth when i said i agreed with a lot. >> do you agree with citizens in the territories to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to become a state or an independent country? >> absolutely. they are individuals. you cannot pass a freedom in a vacuum. you cannot have a freedom if you do not allow others to the same freedom you have. [applause] a lot of these territories are acquisitions because the wars we have been in. most of the people who live

there now were not even born when it happened. sure, they have a right to decide their own fate, whether they want to be part of our country or not. if not, let's establish trade with them. that is where peace and prosperity come from. it is trade. if they want to be part of the united states, fine. it should be their decision. if they do not, we should start lead them along just like we leave the other countries along. let's stop messing in people of the business where we do not belong. let's listen and respond to people. that is what americans want. they want a politician that will respond to them honestly and let them make a decision. let's do that. yes. let's let everyone be free. you cannot be free without letting everyone be free. [applause] >> of the territories we have, pr as probably the biggest

territory we have. yes, citizens and up making up -- of all the territories are currently have, they are using u.s. currency. they elect governors. they send governors to the national governors' association meeting. clearly the path has been set, if you will, and i think the decision really lies with the individuals in these countries making the decision as to whether or not they want to have status. [applause] >> my next question is about the initial -- issue of nullification. this is a concept that states that the people within the states essentially have the power to nullify laws by the federal government which the states considered to be

unconstitutional. would you address that question for us? >> i take it is an exciting notion from the standpoint of getting the federal government back to its constitutional rights, which is the 50-state model. 50 different states determining policy, not getting the federal government out of state, local decision making. the best government is government that rules at the most basic level -- at the local level. i think an occasion is an effective tool to bring this about. i hope it gains significance and understanding and i hope it is a cool but it's used more and more often. -- it is a tool that gets used more and more often. [applause] >> nullification as one of the brightest ideas the founders ever had. [applause]

they actually put into the constitution a self-defense calls because they -- clause they knew by experience that congress, parliament, committee -- whatever you want to call it -- would eventually seize power and become a tyranny over the people. they knew that the people -- us, everyone -- had to be the judge of the law. this is one of the most important things we have. this is one of the most important tools that we have. we are ultimately the judge of the law. if the law is just out to be unjust, we are not bound by it. that is what the constitution promises us. [applause] i think people nullify all the time. we all do.

i do not like to drive 55. [laughter] yes, i speak on purpose. i do not like that. i will nullify it. we all do it. this is the way we explain it to people. this is how we make them understand. we are doing it already. they know it is a self-defense thing. we know how to take care of ourselves better than somebody else. [applause] >> it is said by many scientists and others that there is this phenomenon of global warming and is, at least, in part caused by human industrial action. what if any role should the federal government play in dealing with the global warming

or climate change issue? i think mr. rice, you are up .irst democra >> , first of all, they have to get the science straight. global warming every year is called summer. is it global warming and issue is one that, depending on who you talk to, is it real? is it not? it is not so bad, it is natural. we do not know. i guarantee you this, government getting involved will not help us know any quicker. [applause] if anything, if we let government get involved in government warning, the temperature will go up 10 degrees -- in global warming, the temperature will go up 10 degrees. [laughter] mr. >> johnson? >> --

>> mr. johnson? >> let's accept the fact that it is happening, that it is man- made. that given, what looked -- what should we do about it? government should not get involved in this. i am completely opposed to cap and trade. i think it will cripple the u.s. economy. [applause] the best because bubka good -- the best cause of good and normal practices is a good economy. we as consumers are demanding less carbon emissions and guess what, we are going to get it. 50 years from now carbon emissions will be reduced significantly because it is what we as consumers are demanding. today, energy production is cleaner than it was 50 years ago. this is something we will continue to demand.

but after iraq gets involved, we will spend trillions of dollars and have no -- but if the government gets involved, we will spend trillions of dollars and have no input on the outcome. [applause] >> the question from our delegates -- or one of our delegates -- after this election is over -- mr. johnson, you'll be the first one of -- after this election is over, will you remain an activist within the libertarian party? >> no, first of all, i view this as a job interview. i really want this job. [applause] and if this turns out to be as

successful as i think it has the possibility to be, i would make the commitment to try to be the spokesperson -- again, a i am vying for the nomination. i hope to get that nomination. if that happens and it is as successful as i think it might be, i would love to be the same spokesperson in 2016. i think you all are making an investment. i am also making an investment -- one that is long-term. regardless of whether or not i am the nominee, i will return for the rest of my life. [applause] again, i will argue that i have been a libertarian all of my life. i have just come out of the closet.

[applause] >> mr. rice? >> the governor and i have something in common. i want the job, too. [applause] the first thing i am going to do after the election, i am going to sleep for about two weeks. i am going to get up, move the couch, and take a nap. after i have recovered, i am going back to work. this is my home. i do not know how to do anything else. there are no ifs, ands, or buts with me. i am in the libertarian party to stay and to work to make this country a better place. i hope all of you help me and join me in doing that. [applause] assume that ron paul --

i think everybody knows who ron paul is -- ron paul was the libertarian party candidate for credit in 1988. he is now seeking the republican presidential nomination, but assume he does not get it. would you make an appeal to the ron paul supporters to join the libertarian party and, if so, how would you go about it? mr. rice. >> i have already done it on the campaign trail for instance, when we were in california not too long ago, i took the opportunity one evening to go into west hollywood. i thought i was going to a fund raiser. i ended up at the ron paul meet up. this was not ordinary ron paul meet up. this was somehow ron paul organizing to predict this was ron paul organizing to take over the report -- this was ron paul organizing to take over the

republican committee of california. i told those faults the same thing i would tell any other ron paul meet up group. if dr. paul does not make it, you have some place else to go. you have people that agree with you. that agree with dr. paul. [applause] i mean, i have been told i am more libertarian than ron paul, if that is possible. those people have a natural home with us. the republicans are letting them down time and time again. this time, the republican party a store to destroy the ron paul people by not giving them what they want, what they feel like they deserve. you have a home with us. all of you and paul people out there, this is your home. -- all of you ron paul people out there, this is your home. come and join us. [applause]

>> dr. paul asked for my endorsement in 2008. i readily gave that endorsement. when i dropped out of the republican party, i asked everyone who was supporting me to support dr. paul. i think -- first of all, i think i am speaking on behalf of everybody in this room -- at the heart of dr. paul's support is people with hearts and minds. i do not think they are going to need any persuading or understanding that there is a real, viable alternative and it is not a step back, but it might be a step forward. maybe i made a consolation in joining the republican party when i am really in the libertarian party -- that is the opportunity that exists here. [applause]

and that is really key to this equation. as much as i would like to see dr. paul win the republican nomination, i do not think it is. to happen. when that comes to an end, with open arms, come out of the closet and come to where you have always belonged. [applause] >> now we come to our closing statements. >> already? >> already. [laughter] we are having so much fun. the closing statements will be three minutes each. i would like each of you to address this question -- how will york 2012 candidacy and campaign benefit the libertarian party and the cause of liberty?

mr. johnson, you go first. >> well, look -- i think libertarian's offer the best of both parties. democrats have historically been good on civil liberties. republicans have been good when it comes to dollars and cents -- not really. perhaps libertarians' embraced the best of both of these. i think it is a combination of civil liberties and balancing a checkbook. i do want this job. i view this as a job interview. i will unabashedly make this pitch to you. i think i have it in spades when it comes to civil liberty. [applause] the aclu issued a report card on all the potential candidates and how they stood on civil liberties, the constitution, the first 10 amendments to the constitution. 24 was a perfect score. rick santorum and mitt romney

got zero out of 24. nicking rich got for liberty torch's out of 24. president obama got 16 liberty ports is out of 24. ron pollack got 18 out of 24. gary johnson led the pack with 21 out of 24. -- ron paul got 18 out of 24. gary johnson led the pack with 21 out of 24. i think that is an objective measurement of a civil liberties. i think an objective measurement of dollars and cents is my seven of the 50 vetos of legislation in new mexico. -- 750 vetoes of legislation in new mexico. it made a difference. i want to tell you, that good government was easy. it was not hard. easy met that you look at the issues of first and politics laughed. government was not for sale. -- first and politics last.

government was not for sale. i did and npr radio interview yesterday. you are a libertarian governor, mr. johnson. what do you say about helmets and motorcycles? do you ride a motorcycle? yes, i ride a motorcycle, i wear a helmet, and wear protective clothing. what i said as governor of new mexico was wear a helmet, but i do not want to pass a helmet legislation in the mexico because the mexico has a problem that all states have -- organ donor shortages. if i sign this legislation -- you have to elect somebody that can go toe to toe when it comes to debating and discussing libertarian ideals and how it will make a difference and how it can make a difference.

i would just argue that i have that experience. thank you you all very much. -- thank you all very much. [applause] >> mr. rice, your last words. >> now for the collective sigh of relief -- the last man speaking. i hope you have enjoyed yourself tonight. [applause] more importantly, i hope you see what i was talking about and what i have been talking about throughout my whole campaign how we are different. you did not see a debate tonight where the video at actors went after each other before blood. you saw two applicants for a job but of us want. i believe that either one of us would do a good job. as far as my campaign and what

my staff and ourselves will do, regardless of the outcome tomorrow, we go to work the next day to continue to do what we have been doing -- trying to build this party, trying to bite -- find good candidates. we would use our video techniques and our capabilities to continue to produce tools for the candidates in the libertarian party. tools we so sorely need. i cannot be anything else but a libertarian. i cannot go anywhere because you all here. i cannot imagine that i would ever do anything else except work for the party i love, the family in love. i thank you all for coming tonight, being here, and giving us the opportunity, the privilege, and the honor to stand before you and even be considered for the highest office in the land. i have never been so honored as

i am here tonight, standing next to governor johnson. i thank each and everyone of you for being here and i will continue to do what i do and help you. [applause] >> tomorrow, all of you delegates will take on a great responsibility of voting in selecting one of these two men to be the candidate of the libertarian party for the office of the united states -- president of the united states. my great thanks to both of you, lee rice and gary johnson.

thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> we are going to show the entire debate between the lipid -- the libertarian presidential

debates again tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. at noon, the delegates vote for their nominee. the chicago tribune predicted gary johnson will be the libertarian party nominee, but he could still be excluded from the national debate. candidates must appear on a significant number of state ballots and get 15% of the national vote in five national public opinion polls. governor johnson? -- governor johnson's has only been acquitted in one poll and has a 7% of the national vote compared to president obama with 46% and former governor mitt romney with a 39%. we will see how both libertarian candidates fare tomorrow at noon eastern as the delegates cast their ballots. president obama and first lady michelle obama will be on the campaign trail tomorrow starting off in columbus, ohio on the

campus of ohio state university for the first of two rallies. you can watch the president live from ohio at 12:55 eastern time on line at c-span.org and the second stop in richmond, va. at 4:45 eastern here on c-span as the president and first lady make a stop at virginia commonwealth university. spend the weekend in oklahoma city with booktv and american history tv. saturday, a check in on whate'er -- literary life. oklahoma university president and former senator on his "a letter to american." also, rare books from galileo, copernicus, and others from the history of science collection at oklahoma university. oklahoma history on american history tv on c-span3. toward the oklahoma city bombing

memorial. plus, a look at american life and made american artifacts from the oklahoma is to reach center. once a month, c-span's local content vehicle exports the history of cities across america. this weekend, oklahoma city on c-span2 and c-span3. >> saturday this month, c-span radio and the nixon tapes. this saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern, here conversations with deputy national security adviser alexander haig. >> it was very mixed -- very significant with the new york times. i did not read the story. there is a whole study that was done far mcnamara and carried on

after he left by clifford and the peaceniks over there. this is a devastating security breach. >> listen on 90.1 fm in washington, d.c. or on c- span.org. >> new jersey governor chris christie's vote tonight at the libertarian cato institute. he talked about the fight to cut government spending and how successful domestic leadership can have a positive impact abroad. he is the keynote speaker at a dinner honoring a chinese activists. >> be said by next year's dinner he will look as good as i do. it is a pleasure to be here

tonight to celebrate the work of the cato institute and tonight's artery. -- honoree. people ask me why did you decide to accept this invitation on a friday night, leave all that is exciting in new jersey on a friday night, come down here to this sleepy little hamlet, and speak before a small group of committed conservatives. it is really simple. it is because the milton freedman award is being granted tonight. -- milton friedman is being granted tonight. in new jersey, we believe that everything in america has a connection to new jersey. [laughter] [applause] so, fo ofr view devotees of

friedman here tonight, remember that milton friedman went to rutgers, the state university of new jersey. [applause] he went to the your birth the chicago to, but i do not think there is any question that his genius was truly developed and nurtured on the banks of the american river. -- in new brunswick, new jersey at rutgers university. we are coming together to night at the close of a weaker that will always have a place in our country's history going forward. it will be remembered as the date that america finally caught and killed osama bin laden.

[applause] i hope that in the future it will be a moment where we can come together as a country thankful for seal team 6 and the continued sacrifice of our soldiers. [applause] it is a day, i think, that will strengthen our resolve -- a day to renew our commitment to battling terrorism. i spent seven years of my life committed to that cause. i was the first united states attorney in new jersey in the post-september 11 era. i was informed by the white house i would be nominated by the president to be nominated -- the job i accepted that they became significantly different the next day when 900 new

murdered in the world trade center -- more citizens than any other state than the state of new york. in the intervening time, put down to the of terror plots. when i say we must keep our resolve committed, i mean we must keep our resolve committed to making sure we pay honor to those families and their loved ones who gave their lives on september 11. i hope this day of may 1 will help us continue to remember that sometimes justice is slow, but we should always be resolved to be sure at justice is certain. far osama bin laden, justice for those killed on that day

happened. the image of the united states around the world does not begin and end with a day like that, though. our image is directly tied to what we say. to what we do. to who we are each and every day. all 365 both at home and abroad. we do not have the luxury of believing domestic matters have no consequences beyond our borders. if anything, the path of the united states has taken over the last decade has proven that who we are at home primarily defines our role and our significance in the world. principals should never stop at the water's edge. as a result, i think we can agree the imagery of around the world is not what it was, is not what it can be, and certainly not what it needs to be. this country pays a price whenever our economy fails to deliver rising living standards

for our citizens or our political system cannot come together in agreement on a difficult but necessary steps to rein in entitlement spending, where we willingly let ourselves be distracted by issues that are nothing more than political sideshows and when special interests went out over the collective national interest. barack obama talked about the lack of hope and optimism around the country in 2008. in the environment i found myself in 2009 was not significantly different although he and i defy the solutions to the problem entirely -- in entirely different ways. when i first took office in january 2010 in new jersey, optimism with a hard thing to find and for very good reason. in the eight years before i became governor, our state raised taxes and fees 115 times

in eight years. something,'re eating let me repeat that -- taxes and fees 115 * increased in eight years. in the decade before i became a decade from 2000-2009, new jersey had zero private-sector job growth literally zero. -- private-sector job growth. literally 0. it was a zero job growth decade in new jersey. in the years before i became governor, $70 billion in guelph left new jersey in four years. -- in a wealth left new jersey in four years. $70 billion in departed wealth. our at on a plan rate was over 10%. -- our unemployment rate was

over 10%. my predecessor was jon corzine 9. you always wonder what will be the last line? to my staff, mark that down. that was it. [laughter] the highest tax burden in the country with the worst climate for small business and a bloated state government with the highest number of government workers per square mile in the country. yes, you can laugh. unless you live there. when i came to office in those last few weeks of january 2010, you would think that given the hand i was already dealt the news could not get worse -- you would be wrong. in my second week of governor, my chief of staff came into my office and said if we could not cut $2.20 billion in spending in

the next five weeks, new jersey would not be able to make payroll participate. and -- -- payroll for the second pay period in march. no self control. you can say, no, i saw him. he does. [applause] we have to find $2.20 billion in cuts for money that had already been appropriated. we essentially had to impound the money back from the department's it had already been

appropriated to. this was just so we could meet payroll, the second pay perio in marchd in the second reject paper -- pay period in march. just visit new jersey in january 2010. i had two choices when confronted with this meeting. i could negotiate with the democratic leadership and the democratically-controlled legislature and try to come to an agreement on these cuts, or ought thanks to new jersey's unique constitutional structure, cut spending through executive order. for those of you is the rub was the of the last 2.5 years, if you believe i chose the former, it is now time for you to leave.

you are not smart enough to be here at the milton friedman dinner. we [laughter] wet with the second choice. we went over -- we went with the second choice. we went over the budget i inherited. the result was cutting $2.20 billion. [applause] the great thing about october -- operating by executive order is at first i did not have to tell anybody. i signed the executive order and ask for a speech before the joint session of the legislature. it was my first one. there is a tradition, apparently, that governors give copies of their speech before they arrive at the chamber for members of the legislature to

review and know when to either, of the republican side, appropriately clout or, the democrat side, looked grim and sit on your hands. i decided not to give them the option and would not give in the text before hand. it was a rather tense room i walked into. it was about a 40-minute speech. the good news for you is, i can break it now to. five years later to 30 seconds. some said i should have done it the first time. here is basically what i said. i said i came to office and you and be an enormous fiscal problem and a budget $2.20 billion out of balance in the middle of the year. you proposed nothing to fix the problem. i went to my office, i found $2.20 billion in cuts, i signed an executive order, they are now in effect.

i fixed your problem. you can thank me later. have a good day. [laughter] [applause] now, you can only imagine, as i walked out of the assembly chamber, the reaction from the legislature. democratic legislators began calling me names. julius caesar. napoleon bonaparte. all of those great leaders of the past i admired so much. [laughter] the next day i was walking into the state house and at the same time as the democratic senate president. the senate but that in new jersey is a good guy. steve is from the southern part of our state. he is the president of the iron worker's local union in new jersey.

he is a big guy like me. we came walking in together. i told him, steve, i read all this stuff you read about me. i said europe turned me around. but i am going to go upstairs, vacate the executive order, send this problem down the hallway, and let you fix it. all you need to know about politics in new jersey -- steve said, and a governor, do not overreact. -- hey, governo do not overr reactor, . it is not so bad. >> my point in telling you the story is what the first real substantial problem i faced in office, how you confronted the problem sets the tone for your administration. i made clear from the first day

that decades of responsibility were no longer going to be tolerated. this was the administration that was quick to put an end to practices that had become excessive by in new jersey. as i said from my days on the campaign trail in 2009, if you elect me, i will go to trenton and turn it upside down. the press said we do not know what that means. after that speech, they were informed. i made clear we were not kidding around, that we met to radically change the way government in new jersey was. to operate. now the new jersey we have today is very different. the next year we had an $11 million budget. 37% deficit. the percentage of highest deficit than any state in america. the democrats have their solution. you have heard this before -- a

millionaire surcharge. we already have a millionaire tax in new jersey that was started by governor mccready. here is the great thing about new jersey. our millionaires' tax applies to any business or individual that makes over $400,000 per year. [laughter] this is called new jersey math. it shows you how optimistic i am -- i tried to use this as a plug. i say to people, listen -- come to new jersey. if you have always dreamed of being a millionaire. [laughter] even if you are not, we will tax you like you are one. [laughter] [applause]

they proposed a surcharge on the millionaires' tax which would make our top rate penpoint 75%. third highest in america. behind all lay california and hawaii. we are the third. they passed the bill and brought it down to my office with great fanfare. cameras following them. my mother taught me to be polite. guests are coming. i put my coat on. i went outside. they handed me the bill. you know what democrats do with these tax increase bills. it was called the "freedom and justice for all active." for allom and the fajustice act." i am from new jersey, so i said

to the leaders of the legislature -- sit down for one second. i will be right with you. i went into my pocket, took out my pen, sat down at the little table, vetoed it and handed it right back to them. i said, here you go. we do not need to be dealing with this. they said we will be back. i said we will see. they try to override might veto. republicans stood with the and they did not. we closed and $11 billion budget gap without raising taxes on people in new jersey for the first time in 10 years, showing we were responsible. [applause] then last year we pass a $2.30 billion business tax cut for businesses in new jersey to try to bring people back into new jersey to make it affordable for them to create jobs. what has happened since?

nearly 70,000 new private-sector jobs have been created in new jersey. what we are doing is creating a sense of optimism in our state. for the first time in 10 years, a majority of the new jersey residents believed the state is back on the right track. [applause] to give you a different perspective, on election day 2009, the percentage of new jersey residents who said the state was on the right track was 19%. today that number is 53%. do not tell me that people in this country are not ready to hear the truth. we cut spending in every department of state government. we reduced overall spending in my first budget by over 9%, not off projections of growth, off of spending from the year before. we cut education.

we cut military affairs. we cut benefits for veterans. we cut everything. lks told me it was the third rail of politics. i decided to go after something else -- entitlement for new jersey. pensions and health benefits are at government employees. this is when and we took -- they told me we would have a real problem. we put forth common-sense reform. we forced them to pay more into their pensions. they had to actually paper health benefits. when i became governor, public employees in new jersey were not repair -- required to pay anything for their health benefits. we said the retirement age had to be raised. we said early retirement had to have a greater penalty if you're going to take it. we said there should be no cost

of living adjustment to your pension until your fund is solvent. they said this is core to be impossible to do, but we did it. we read to the public and tell them why it is so important. we told them the pension fund would go broke in 2018. we told them our health benefit fund was $67 billion underfunded. it was. to lead to the financial -- what happened? we actually convinced democrats. that separate the that i told you about who have the fun equip on the way in an early on, he deserves great credit. he sponsored the bill. only one-third of its own caucuses were willing to vote for it. he passed the bill in the state senate. the speaker of the assembly -- [applause] -- a democratic woman, she

posted the bill in her house with only 13 of her 47 democratic colleagues willing to vote yes. why? because we lead. because we took the risk of first. because we told the truth. when you see these numbers in new jersey, and i tell you all of the things that we have done, do not tell me the american people are not ready to hear the truth. they know government is out of control. they know our debt and deficit are out of control. most of them are so confused. they do not have to like it. but they know in their heart they have to accept it. the only thing the american people care more about than today is tomorrow. tomorrow is about our children and our grandchildren.

today is just about us. -- we identified problems, we proposed specific means to fix them, we educated the public on the direct consequences of inaction, and then we compromised on a bipartisan basis to get results. bottom line, we took action. we did it with solid principles and with strong leadership. this is the only way you can accomplish these things is through the executive taking the risk and encouraging everyone else to come along with us when they know it is the right thing to do. where are we today? we are not dealing with multibillion-dollar budget deficits anymore. a year, and was able to post a budget with the first income-tax cut far new jersey in over 15 years. [applause]

a 10% across-the-board tax cut that would give new jersey residents over $9 billion in relief over the next decade. here is the amazing thing -- you expect democrats to fight me on it. but instead, the majority of democrats are saying yes. they just argue with me about the best way to do it. that proves strong principled leadership can change the discussion in a state when you have democrats agreeing with me that it this time to cut taxes after a decade of raising them, it is official. in new jurors a we have done this because we put our state prosy interests ahead of partisan interests. we have made friends with our colleagues who agreed to view this in a common-sense way.

that is why our reforms are going to save $132 billion from taxpayers or the next 30 years. also secure pensions from people counting on them, our police officers, firefighters, teachers to arafat counting on them for their financial future. it counts. these accomplishments set a tone. look at the accomplishments being held by republican governors and many other states. there is a problem you fix it. that is a choppy have been set to do. when you do your job you have to tell your citizens the truth. tell them the truth about the difficulty of solutions. treat them like adults.

[applause] in the difficult times america is it now, this is the only way to govern. we pay the price as a country many times over. growth slows, high levels of unemployment persist, we make ourselves more predictable to skittish markets where the political decisions of our letters. there is a foreign crisis. we diminish our ability to persuade other societies around the world to become more democratic then to show our democracy and our markets work better than any other system. we needed to care about this because we believe democracy is the best protector of human liberty, and it freed them. we know this because history

shows mature democracies -- when need to care because we believe in open trade. imports are a means to increase consumer choice. [applause] all around the world in the middle east and africa and latin america people are debating their own futures right now. they are looking for inspiration right now. we have a stake in the outcome of their debates. middle east could become largely democratic. it rejects terrorism. it becomes a dependable source of energy for the entire world. there is no better way of reinforcing the the world or opt

for more open societies the market-based economies than to demonstrate our system is working well. our greatness is a reflection of our determination and our ingenuity in the strength of our institutions whether a crisis in the world america found a way to hold together or help us find our enemies. we put the greater public interest first. our system, we did it through strong leadership by strong leaders. our own domestic conflict his failed to live up to this tradition of exceptional as some. today our ability to accept change has been diminished because of our own problems and our unwillingness to affectively deal with it.

i understand six sitting at home is not enough. it is a start. in the united states will sustain a leadership position around the world with the resources are there in our society to produce a society others want to emulate. without the authority the come from exceptional as some, earned american exceptional as a, we cannot do good for other countries, we can i continue to be a beacon for the world to aspire to, we cannot produce of the generations who believe this is the best way to govern a people. [applause] what i am calling for requires a lot of our people, i plead guilty to that.

i plead guilty to being an optimist. i believe the what this country can accomplish if they understand what is being asked of them and how we will all of family benefit of the challenges met. it is not just because --i tell my staff all the time, aft we have a big victory, remember teh mostimprotant reason we won is becaseu we are right. substitute for that. there i ssomething else. we have forogtten tha. day after day after day.

9 spent time convincing the of my spirit and my intentions and idon't believe compromise is a dirty word. there i alsoways a boulevard between getting everytthing you want. you need to understand in a aplace like ashington you will no get everything you want. the job of a leader is to find your way without drivign into the ditch ofpcompromsiin gyour

principles. this is what ew are trying to dol if wedid not do this in new jersey, we can do it from anywhere. we have 700,000 more republicans tha democrats, 1972 was teh last time we send a republican to the senate. i don'twantto hear another republican crying that they

cannot do this. thatis where my optomim omes rom. the do no agree with eyw ay i say it. i am not looking to be loved. i get plenty of love at home. i am not bragging, i do. i am not looking for people to love me. tht is when dificits get run up. you cannot say not to anytthing

becuase someone cannot do itl. they think, i will not be lovd,. my mother said, if you have a choice between being love and be respecte, be rewpsected. seh is talking about women. i od thionk this apllies to politicis. if you make them understand you are willing to stand hard on you believe int

but you are willing to compromise, respect will come. ii think iti si comeing for us. when i tell them i will do someting, i ill do it. if i tell the no, they know no means no. new york magazine did a story on me. the headline as, no means no. they taped this to the bacvk of their oors.

the answer i no. [applause] without being consistent, it sia about leading by example. it is about standing for the things we believe ion. and being willing to stand up to those who give you the easy answers is what we need to do more now more than ever. we need o be tough enouhg to

tell it like it is. we need to say directrly -- they need to year itl. it we meet that challengem,we will allolw the united states to export hope not just by dayin it but by living itl i want to thank th cato insitutute for setting an er xample why liberty i so important. i left bercaseu i told you i

believe in what you believe inl if you are willing to stadn adn fight with me, we ened o get aretin harder tahn wea now. we hope it will imspore peopl to fighr all around the ountry. we are acing to make it a bedrock of our future. thank you very much.

[applause] >> c-span will have live coverage from the red rock which are from noon eastern with the presidential selection process. speeches from the candid senate will vote for their party nominee. live coverage from several events. it will start off in columbus ohio for the first of two obama for america campaign rallies. the second stop will be live on c-span and the afternoon at 4:35 eastern. spent the weekend in oklahoma city with but tv and american history tv.

oklahoma university president and former senator on his letter to america, also books from galileo and others from the history of science collection at ou. tour the oklahoma city bombing memorial. a look into african-american life into 1920's oklahoma. once a month the local content the tickell's explore the literary life of cities across america. sashay we will take a look at the latest jobs numbers. the unemployment rate dropped from 8.3 to april 1% and add a 115,000 jobs less than

forecasted. heather smith will discuss the historical youth vote. >> joe biden spoke about the violence against women act, a bill he helped enact in 1994. the legislation is up for renewal and congress. the senate passed a version providing six and of $50 million in funding. the bill is awaiting action and the house. he gave his remarks at the national conference in the sea. this is 40 minutes. [applause]

>> good afternoon. i put like to welcome you to the 2012 annual conference. and this sector and we have in the room 400 liters. cause[applause] representing the 2 million people we serve around the country. we are july and by the coalition on human needs and organizations on the natural task force to end

the sexual violence against women. partners and our effort capacity the violence against women act. [applause] also with us today are for brave woman who are survivors of domestic violence and the lives and our transitional housing and york pennsylvania. [applause] i welcome all of the. i would like us to take a moment to celebrate our were victory last week. in the senate, the bipartisan reauthorization bill was passed

68-31. [applause] in the audience today is somebody who worked to make that happen. i would like to salute to a friend and the champion for addressing the issue of violence and sexual assault with a the whole executive branch and across the nation. please welcome me in thanking all then, the white house adviser of violence against women. [applause] it is my great pleasure to introduce somebody who has

dedicated his life and career to public service. making our world a better, safer, and more civil place for all of us. he has held elected office for more than 40 years, he became a center in 1942. it was during the 70's and a the's that the movement began. a handful plug in the their first hot line phones. the wide a b.c. it was the first shelter to take and women who were too ashamed to call for help.

in the late 80's our speaker investigated the issue of domestic and sexual violence. there was no way to bring the hotchpotch of state and local laws as a loss funding programs to the attention of a natural audience. he did not give up. he pushed the creation of a bill to address this epidemic that had no name, a few solutions, and a lot of casualties, usually women and children. so began the journey toward the passage of the violence against women act, the 1994 law that commanded our nation to addressing the domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and the violence impacting women all across the united states.

the senator had few allies in the early years. either inside or outside congress. the ywca is proud we were at his side back then. we continue today to promote his vision that our society will one day be free of these courage of one man and their families. [applause] many groups in this room were with us as well and we applaud them. despite little support he kept what he wanted to achieve. characteristic passion, the zeal, and of ferber. stories of his dedication are legend.

old men who thought he was making of the problem. he is hard to resist. even for orrin hatch. he met on a regular basis with a coalition of groups working to get the bill passed. he held hearings and the more hearings. with the 67 sponsors he shoveled

it in the senate during the crime bill's negotiations. then he took the states to make sure his signed the bill that included the the violence against women act. he remains our champion and a genuine caring straight talking guy next door. it is my privilege to introduce the vice president of the nine states, joe biden. [applause]

>> thank you. jenny and die in her family of bacca long way. thank you for all the do. i understand gaby's mom is here. she will be here tonight speaking to remarkable woman. i want to begin by thanking you. it is a genuine honor to be able to be here with you. thank you for the kind of comments. you are out there every single solitary day. every day helping thousands upon thousands of women and girls struggling. just to feed themselves and

their families and take care of their children, just to get shelter. in a whole lot of cases you are helping them escapes violence and making sure they do not have to choose between a live on the street and a life back in prison in their home. a life of abuse. sometimes some of my male friends -- even women think i am too passionate about this. they ought to walk -- as a mom said, a day in your shoes and see what happens. this is real. the thing i love about you, it is one woman at a time. your the only refuge.

you have helped half a million abused girls and women. you changed their lives and in many cases you have saved lives. that is not hyperbole. now you are out there helping veterans return after a life of service. we just had a reception for a these female service members who volunteered to be on teams to go into -- >> you were there. these women volunteered to go into the villages and into iraq banged. into afghanistan because they are unable to care for women who

may be in trouble and the villages. all walks of life into leaders. i used to have a friend he said, you have to know how to know. it sounds silly. this guy a was a basketball player. he knew life. you have to know how to know.

look at the women you know that you grew up with. the woman i have known. if you had to come up with the distinguishing feature of that distinguished them from success you had, they did not have a chance to be exposed. exposed to the possibility. would you get exposed you figure out quickly, i can do that. that woman is not much smarter than i. it never seems -- and they have never seen the opportunities. women and men both, they have a taste and feeling, almost every woman i know has a story about a

cost the intended, a circumstance that were exposed to. a circumstance they were rescued from or a story about how they were able to serve, how they got engaged, how they were sucked in. henry ford went to ireland in his first trip after he became a wealthy man he was. they got him to his hotel room and issa, by the way, we had a drive for children's hospital we are building and we wondered if you would want to help. he roared its it for $5,000.

it was a great deal of money. the next morning he broke up in the hotel room and the headline said, he contributed $5,000. there was a knock on the door. he said, we're so sorry. we will print a retraction immediately. he said, come in. he said here is a lot of what engraves it. i came upon the, in the tub me in. [applause] all a woman has to do is come

upon you and you will taker and let my daughter. you are an incredible group of people and women. i am is so proud. it is not hyperbole to say this. this was so proud to call the my friends. when i was a kid, these are the web and i have been involved with and everything is good having to do with my state. i know where you give your commitment from. not just your mom, your dad. she can tell the, have been involved since i came back after law school working unleased side because that is where the ywca was and is. i can tell you that if i had any question of wandering from

the flock, my 29 year old daughter reminds me. she is the love of my life. my wife says she owns me. she does. i did not mind the ownership. when she called me and said, there will be a meeting in washington. i said, i am not supposed to be there. she said, ok. you have it done.

>> my people. i know, but you have to do more. and so, look, i know from firsthand experience how much we have achieved it together. i know working how much more can accomplish. it is live at liz will we can do. we are working together to reauthorize this act. i want to thank you for breaking the law. here is the deal. we should not be having this debate. [applause] you know, once together, we were able to lay out clearly for the american public, men and women.

once we laid out the scope of the problem in the 1990's. the prison ship must've been something she did. that was the most significant barrier we broke through. once that was sent, once that was done and we did get -- at i thank him for stepping up when he did. only three republicans voted for this so are and was taking it

chance. we have pep said part this is a corporate extend the word because the authority to have them of unfair to mishnah institutions across the in a zip the she has done -- the have done an incredible amount of work beyond the four corners of the document.

it is based on results. would you reauthorize a bill in the congress, what everybody does this they go back and said, that bill is not working. before reauthorize the, is this working. if it is based on results, what are we talking about this? [applause] police department's put offenders behind bars. domestic violence has dropped 60%. states have moved and passed seven header laws to protect victims and hold them accountable. that was a problem 20 years ago. we set up a national hot line that inserted 2 million calls.

if i can get every man and woman in america to go down to the hot line with me and do what we did what we were asking all of the high-tech companies which they did to step in and it makes the biggest backer of so we did not drop common cause, i had internal one of the cost. a young woman said, i see him. oh, jeez. i am standing between the radio shack -- please. that is the reality. i love these opposes a, a lot of

people had the courage to get up and leave. can you imagine the courage it takes to pick up the phone in the first place and take the call. we should all have some much courage. we also build a network with your help specialized -- a network of shelters specialized units, specifically trained prosecutors. from the outset, i must tell you, my single intention was to establish the basic principle in the law and in the civic culture of this country that no girls should ever be victimized purely because of her gender and the

fact a man had more physical or economic power. as a matter of a cultural touchstone. that is what is intended. i remain confident that once the principle was established and accepted by the vast majority of the public would be able to broaden the tools available to us to deliver on the principle. that is why we added additional tools. we knew from the beginning there was more we could do in the first bill. the whole purpose was to establish the principle. once we did we started adding to the law. a definition of dating violence, transitional housing programs,

training for health care providers, help with a woman, protection for people living in public housing, children who witnessed violence and homes. thanks to our co-sponsors on the they added in additional protection. it will help schools and colleges deal with violence since girls face the highest rate of abuse of any women in america. it will help law-enforcement screen for domestic risk factors that we know lead to violence and domestic homicide. it will help give police more tools and turning to a stronger, the victims and offenders when they know one another. that is the place we have made the least progress. the reauthorization act passed

the senate 68 votes to 41 was a great move forward. we have one more real hurdle and that is the house of representatives. we need your help here. we need your help in making sure this as my mom and say, the real mccoy passes. the real violence against women act passes. some are scheming because they share the view put forward by a solid republican senator -- he sent it straightforwardly in a street fashion a couple of weeks ago. he said obviously want to be for this title. we need to have something very convincing. we need to have a convincing alternative. and of ".

there is no convincing alternative. this is about a lot more than the title. it is about the context of the bill [applause] with all due respect there is no good alternative because we know what this means to hundreds of thousands of woman's and the girls across america. i banded together a group of advocates for violence including police departments and others in the national sheriffs organization and many others in the white house several weeks ago. i concluded my comments by saying, i think it is clear to someone. imagine the week -- the message we should send of this is not reauthorize.

what would this sent to every one of our daughters, everyone imprisoned in our homes. what would it say to them if we did not reauthorize the slot. what would visit to our mothers about whether or not they are entitled to respect were free of the violence? you are about more. you have done so much more. you have been involved in everything good that affects the courier's and raises the expectations of young girls and women. you have been there for a long time.

we just corrected a bad decision by the supreme court. the cat simply my grandson does the same job as my grandmother does. women can actually find out if they are being discriminated against. providing child care since the early 60's at the yw. if you want an impact on the achievement gap, start educating boys and girls early.

it is not just about early education but about the quality of early education. that is why i am so proud of what the president has recently done. demanded more of all education in america. it has to be a lot more. early morning, we all know, you have educated me. you have educated us over the years. is they need. the achievement gap starts the day they step into school. no matter what the ethnic background is, you are likely to have half the vocabulary of a middle-class home will likely have to. that is the core of the

achievement gap. you have educated entire communities on the affordable care act. because of your stature you have been able to break through the partisan gridlock and explain to members of your community what it is critical that they not be able to charge a higher premium. why deny coverage to the pregnant women? you have been a part of educating communities how important it is for people of access ahead of time. detection. not only it is the morally right thing to do it will save money over time. those are early detection services that people do die have access to and can pay for its in

the affordable care act. having it available to the core not only matters to their health, it matters to their families. they are the sole breadwinners in their family. parenthetically i want to thank you for supporting what i travel all over america trying to sell to our reluctant friends. the need to save teachers' jobs over the nut states of america. [applause] notice how some are bleeding over how webb and i the most damaged -- there is something we can do about this. three-quarters of teachers laid off are women and they have families. we have not given up on that, by the way.

you know women are not only concerned about women's issues. you know the economy is a woman posed the issue. restoring the middle class is a woman's issue. i have to tell you think this fight has only begun. the other team, and the other people and congress -- let me be blunt with the. this is not your father oppose the republican party. the we need it republican party. and we need a real republican party. the other team is taking on every one of the initiatives we fought to establish that we give girls and women and a better chance to level the playing field. the other team and congress has signed onto the ryan budget that

would eliminate some anything to have fought for. they say it is done in the name of fiscal responsibility, which i would like to point out is simply not true. the it has to accommodate the next 10 years of tax cuts for the wealthy. they have to find the money somehow. they will slash medicaid by more and a one-third. slicing food stamps and the calling for a 19% cut in the domestic discretionary programs. he know what is in the discretionary budget, education. head start. job training, the food stamp program. the bill as well as i do what is being proposed is not just about -- you know as well as i do what is being proposed, he knew they will not cut 19%

across the board to pay for this. they will cut 100% and out from many programs. they signal what they find to be the most invulnerable. what do they know about the end of the space that i do not know. [applause] look, let me conclude with a quote from my dad it. i often get asked about, why do i have this passion. it was a mom abused or your sister or your wife before you met her. thank god, no. i was raised by a righteous man who thought the cardinal sen of all sense was abuse of power.

that is the cardinal sin of all sense. the biggest manifestation of that is a man raising a hand to a woman or a child. it is not thank god because women in my life have been victimized. my dad had an expression when somebody would tell me, but this is what i value. he said, do not tell me what you value. show me your budget and i will show you what you value. [applause] show me your payroll. let me look and see. show me your budget. obviously for the time being, we

valley something different than a lot of our friends up on the hill right now. these are not that people, and they're decent people. they have a different valley set right now. we need your help we need your help on the value set. we need your help and the help of our friends at the boys and girls club. all the leaders in the community who have focused on providing opportunity and the filling in the and the needs of our not just the girls to boys and girls, our children. you all have the capacity to see it that the valleys have a fighting chance to be reflected in our laws. you are some of the most influential women in your

community. many of you are successful doctors, lawyers, the people you a a symbol on your boards are remain hispanic the spectrum. and they are among the most influential members of the community. that is one of the reasons why you have some much influence. people listen to you. they know you are not coming at this from a political perspective. they know what you are proposing. it should be main street valdez. do not over estimate your power. i do not think you do. do not over estimate it. you have an impact.

how many people can be good to a major business corporation and they turn you down. they look at you and then know what you do when not embarrass them and only enhance them. the list goes across the board. wherever you go. we spend an incredible honor working with the. i would be remiss if i did not close without saying thank you. thank you for what you do. to work for what you continue to do. as my mom would say if she were standing here, she was sick, ladies, you are doing god's work. thank you all. [applause]

>> sat on it will take a look at the latest jobs numbers with frederick joutz. rock the boat president heather smith will discuss the historical impact of the tooth invoked. the co-founder of the international center talks about race relations in the united states. this past week the congressional talks about the

human rights abuses in china. >> i am afraid of my family because the members' lives. we have installed seven video cameras. even with the electorate france. now, those security officers near my house. they basically said, we want to see what else he can do. >> watched the entire hearing on the c-span video library. plus you can click portions of the event to e-mail and blog post. >> sunday on "q &a" -- >> i want each book to talk

about political power in america. seeing what a president can do in a measure -- a time of great crisis, what does he do to get legislation moving in washington? that is a way of examining power. i want to this in full. it takes 300 pages. and that is why i said, let's examine this. >> robert caro. his biography of the 36 president on "q &a." >> barney frank and the weekly standard's william kristol squared off on a debate both men addressed u.s. is real relations

get'sron's -- iran nuclear program. >> this is one hour and 15 minutes. > >> good morning. john and i are delighted to welcome you to today's great debate of 2012. this has become an anchor of that for the global forum and the great debate can really be -- is always a place where you can hear 1st the important issues. two years ago, many of us were here for the member of debate on iran.

as we heard yesterday, this continues to be a very pressing issue for the community. last year, the of sand covered israeli relations with diaspora jews, another issue is can be heard in the corridors of all major jewish organizations. most appropriately, this will be on the american presidential election. this will impact us all and have great implications for the state of israel. of course, ajc can be counted on to provide all sides of the story. >> thank you very much. welcome to all of you. it is a delight to be here this morning. it has not become too far of a stretch to say that william

kristol and barney frank will have some disagreements. what they don't disagree upon is the importance of being here with us today. what they do believe this is the value of the ajc, the intellectualism of the agency, and the great success of our diplomacy and so for that, i thank them for being here today. i would like to encourage you now to sit back, watch a great introductory video, and then let the good times roll. thank you all. [applause]

>> and the blue corner, a veteran congressman barney frank, famous for his quick tongue, and his career which spanned civil rights, federal regulations, foreign policy. >> people in the hillary clinton machine say barack obama. he cannot run against hillary clinton? >> in the red corner, bill kristol. the editor of "the weekly standard." a thorn in the side of the obama administration on anything from health care to u.s. foreign relations. what is the best approach to iran given the regime's continuing drive to contain nuclear weapons capability? is the grand prize of an israeli palestinians the

sediment -- peace settlement any closer? then, the increased debate about homeland security. how close is the u.s. towards reducing its independence on energy supplies from hostile states. over the next hour, these and other issues will be in the spot light. did not forget as we welcome to the great debate on alexian 2012 -- election 2012. [applause] >> thank you. thank you to linda and john and welcome to this year's ajc great

debate. i want to welcome our viewers who are watching on c-span. our subject is the 2012 american elections. its implications for domestic and foreign policy, its specific implications for developments in the middle east and for the security of israel, its meaning as a yardstick of political attitudes and welty's in the american jewish community. attitudes anda loyalties in the american jewish community. we cannot support any particular candidate in any election. nonpartisan does not mean non- political. the policies that we advocate in the u.s. and around the world, policies to promote peace and security, human rights, our policies that succeed or fail in the political arena. our engagement in the political process could not be more intense. it is because of our active

political interests thatc rarely holds debate and discussions on a slightly smaller scale than this. this is the reason why we publish candidates' responses to our policy questionnaires, , andct issue formums regularly and scientifically survey american jewish opinion. the survey was released at the beginning of this week and we will be discussing it shortly. before we begin our debate with congressman barney frank and "weekly standard" editor bill kristol, a world about our format. -- a word about our format. we will then move to the question and answer portion of the debate in which each speaker will again have up to five minutes to respond. finally come each debater will have the vicinity to offer two minute concluding remarks.

these time limits will be strictly enforced. now, i will ask bill to kick off this debate. thank you. >> thank you, jason. it is good to be here. we have a long association with the ajc. i have always had a high regard for the organization. my father was part of the commentary. this was before you move into the fancy building at 156 and a third. i think that they were further downtown in an even more dumpy place. then, my uncle worked at the ajc for many years. i think i was the only person who had several editions of the ajc in my bookcase.

it is good to be here to make the case for mitt romney and for the republicans against president obama. every four years, i dutifully sent invitations to debates against prominent liberals, democrats come on behalf of the republican candidate before jewish audiences and it is always a pathetic scene. i have an unmatched record of failures from 1984 on. i probably will not try. few're probably very undecided voters. i will not bother making a pitch. this will not be that as 1996. i debated a distinguished jewish journalist. this was at the jewish theological seminary. the moderator was a woman. there was about five other

people there. i said, this is probably a pretty liberal crowd. it was clinton against dole. clinton was a very good friend of israel. dole had no particular affiliation. i remember saying before we walked out on stage, i mentioned that this audience is probably of little bit pro clinton and the moderator said, well, i don't know. they're about 500 people there. about 480 are pro clinton. about 20 are undecided. i think i lost most of the undecided in the course of the evening making my principal case for conservatism. in 2000, i debated at the northern virginia jewish center. this was months before the election. they were setting up in october.

this was to debate the election and i debated a pretty prominent democratic pollster, political operatives from this area. we did not know who the nominees for going to be. i remember thinking, this will be tough again, but maybe i have a chance because george w. bush was very pro israel and it was not clear that clinton would not be running for reelection. we had a chance for a fresh look. then i remember the day that al gore announced the day that joe lieberman was joining the ticket. joe lieberman person has spent a lot of time with every single person in the audience at the northern virginia jewish community center and that was really a wonderful moment. making the cuts for bush cheney against gore-lieberman. -- making be case for push- cheyne against gore-lieberman. there are people that had been at his wedding. it was a nice mayor.

-- it was a nightmare. the differences between the barges are pretty evident and there is not anything specifically jewish in terms of economic policy or social policy. we have a center-right republican party and a center- left democratic party with pretty clear divisions. i hope that this election is a policy-have the issue-have the election. -- is a policy-heavy and issue- heavy election. we can have the debate about entitlement reform, tax policy, about the best way to stop the run from getting nuclear weapons. i'm optimistic that once the republicans have gone through the primaries and present, did

not have -- and the president did not have a primary. i hope that barney frank would be running for president said that the liberals have a voice. those that don't have primary challengers have a better chance of winning. i spent about a week to try to get people like barney frank and russ feingold to challenge obama in the primaries that worked about as well as my thames to get used to vote republicans. we will have a serious discussion and debate about foreign policy. this should not be put aside on behalf of the economic issues, but also entitlement reforms, obama care. i think that your poll shows romney doing considerably better than mccain among jewish voters.

obama pete mccain, 72-28. if you allocate the undecided, it looks something like 68-32, 69-31 split among jews this time. if romney can do much better on the whole country as he looks like he's going to do among jewish voters, he will be president obama, which i think would be a good thing for the country. >> thank you. let me acknowledge the room full complement bill paid me by saying that i was not dumb enough to challenge the president. it is only my refusal to run against the president in a way that would endanger the public policy that would like accepted. that is one more case where i try not to live up to be

stereotyped people use regarding me. there was some very important issues here. we have got to reduce the deficit. the question is what makes the policies do you do? there is a difference between the parties. there's one very clear difference with the way that bill shea did when he said there is a center-left democratic party and a center-right republican party. they used to be. unfortunately, the republican party has moved much further to the right. as thomas mann documented, there has been some movement apart but the republicans have moved farther bright than the democrats have moved farther left. bill has just testified to that by his to give us that are sensible liberals for not attacking our president because he is not been able to get done everything that we want. the republican party has moved

entirely to the right. we now have a major debate on foreign policy on the republican side. whether or not the fact you are gay disables you from being a foreign-policy adviser. that has taken is beyond rationality. if you look at the republican party in the house, you said that you don't have a center- right republican party, i hope you do. i hope that there will be a resurgence of the more responsible mainstream republicans. as to the election, obviously, on most of the issues, given where american jews are in terms of the political spectrum, we start out with a notion that they will vote democratic in the majority. again, that has been confirmed with a 68-32 democratic margin is considered an erosion. the issue that i think is this,

given the fact that most americans, given their views on economics, on the environment, civil liberties, on a woman's right to choose, on a whole other host of issues, would be likely to vote democratic. should they vote republican because president obama is weaker on israel, the answer is no. should this be a referendum on obama's policy toward israel? no, for two reasons. the most important reason is that there are not see the differences. in fact, this notion that somehow president obama has been anti-israel, i served with the president who did take some steps that were blocking israel in congress. that was george h. w. bush. the only time in my 31 years in congress when israel was frustrated in trying to get a policy through the congress was when president george h. w. bush, he bought loan guarantees.

israel wanted loan guarantees to do what the great things they have done which is to assimilate the immigrants. george bush blocked it. he blocked it because -- said that this will remain jewish forever. i try to ameliorate this that -- was very short, very old, and probably could not see that far. the fact is that bush was able to block us from getting a loan guarantees damage in israel. i don't remember anyone in the obama administration being as opening - as israel as secretary of state james baker who said, here is my phone number. if israel wants to make peace, call me. there is one example when the obama administration delivered for israel as well as any president ever has. you go back to about a year ago. you go back and look at the

papers. there was this notion that there was going to be at the when a successful move by the palestinians to get their state had recognized and there was a fear, the assumption was that this was going to happen. america was going to veto this. it would have been america and israel against the world. it would have isolated israel and a way which would have been very negative. the obama administration went to work in one of the most successful examples of diplomacy i've seen. some of this helps, we lot of people in the european union. the obama administration successfully lobbied to the point where they could not get in the security council as sufficient majority so that we had to veto it. it was a victory for israel and unexpected. this is one of the few that they have been able to do in the u.n. the fact is that obama's credibility to do that was in fact enhanced by the fact that

he had been critical of the settlement policy. the notion that you are only a friend of israel if you agree with everything the government does the time, that is not just wrong, it is counterproductive. many of my colleagues on the right to think you can never criticize the israeli government. i remember people attacking bacon over camp david. -- i remember people attacking -- over camp david. i think that his separation from the government with every aspect of this policy with the government was one of the things that add it to the credibility. he was able to deliver one of the few diplomatic successes at the u.n. >> thank you. we will provide you, bill, with an opportunity to respond. >> i think it is revealing that barney has to attack be a steady bush administration. the big story is that the

republican party has become a reagan republican party and not a bush-baker republican party. i served in that bush administration. we argued against bush on these loan guarantees. we helped israel's security a lot. some people were opposed to that war and they were not republicans. objectively having bush in the white house was better than having michael dukakis and the white house. richard nixon was not a friend of the jewish people and did not get a lot of jewish votes. we have to look at -- look at the current republican party. the current roebuck and party is that the bush-baker model. -- the current republican party is the push-baker model. this is a strongly pro israel

party. bonnie's problem is that it is too pro-israel. they don't complain when they build an apartment building in north through islam because it is across the green line. -- they don't complain when they build an apartment building in northern jerusalem because it is across the green line. the obama administration made a big deal about that. i'm happy to defend the republican party. mitt romney would be a more viable friend than president obama. >> it is not a reagan republican, it is to the right of reagan on issue after issue. ronald reagan asked the government to raise the debt limit several times. these people that are now running the house republican party, i attacked them. mitt romney willing to accommodate the right wing is

very enthusiastically actually attacked rick santorum because he voted to raise the debt limit. this is not a center-right party. as for israel, we differ about was the most effective way to defend israel. i have been to college campuses working with aipac. i defend israel. i do it from the left. one of the things that i want to give credit to the netanyahu government, in the history of the u.s., three government leaders have said pro gay rights things. bill clinton, barack obama, and benjamin netanyahu. the fact is that if your position is that you are just point to defend whatever the israeli government does, then your credibility as a world what

defender of israel is weakened. i do not think it is possible to say it is is responsible to get peace. what israel needs to do in his own interest is to make it clear that if there is not a genuine two-state solution, it is not israel's fault. there are political pressures within that democracy of israel that i believe pull them away from what is the most effective international efficacy. i am very pleased to try to do something. at the end, the obama administration has taken a negative action against of the israeli government, unlike the bush administration. what we have done is a much more effective way of defending them and the results are very clear. >> i want to point out here that it is wonderful to have party flank defending shamir, netanyahu, and rick santorum. >> no, i was differentiating

netanyahu from santorum. he is much better than santorum. >> we will agree that we both preferred netanyahu to santorum. [laughter] [applause] >> let me begin the formal questioning. each election, we hear that this is the year that jews are going to shift their traditional democratic loyalties to the republican party. we have just released a survey of the american jewish public opinion, we found that the jewish vote was split. about 61% for president obama, 20% for governor romney with the remainder undecided. what do you make of these numbers? is 2012 finally the year of the republicans? >> no, i think if you do this and allocate the undecided, about 8-four, you would end up with 68-32.

i think that there will be progress over 2008. the jews essentially learn from reality. it takes them quite a while sometimes. i think younger jews and more affiliated jews will be voting more republican this year, but it has been a long and slow process for jews. this is to shed some old- fashioned views about the bush republican party and the republican party of the 30's and 40's, but i don't tell people how to vote or vote on the basis of religion. people should vote on the candidate they think will do the best. i will point out one thing, for these jewish americans, who the poll surveys come 80% of american jews site of the economy as the most important issue. 26% from a national security, 26% u.s.-is relations. of those that site national security, 42% would vote for,

come off 44% will vote for romney. -- 42% would vote for obama, 44% will vote for romney. for those jews for whom national security and israel trump's economy, they are breaking slightly for romney and i think that that is significant. >> first of all, that year we are waiting for it as our become. 76, at the 4-carter breakdown -- >> i think 80 was the best year. >> we have been below that. i think that there has been a misperception of the obama

record. yes, he was more critical of the settlements. i have been critical of the settlements and i believe it makes me a more effective advocate for israel. i can go to an apec conference and i talked to young people who said they got beat up because they speak out. i volunteered to travel. i talk about israel's domestic liberalism compared to its repressive neighbors in every area. i also make it clear that think that the settlement policy is mistaken and weakens israel. that is what obama said. i want to go back to this again. tell me the last time that israel scored as well in the u.n. as it did when we kept them from getting a majority on the security council. i think that is enhanced by this difference. their notion that romney would be a better friend of israel somehow -- like they say, when

we talk about romney, there are no guarantees. there is no warranty on his positions. probably, he would stick with it. i cannot think of any policy action where obama has not done a was and is rove plus interest. >> the agency's survey found that on domestic matters, jews remain where they have been for decades. -- i cannot think of any policy action or obama has not done what was in the to's best interest. >> is that sustainable? if a majority of jews favored democrats on economics, immigration, energy security, what can republicans offered to turn them in a different direction? >> there -- this is not about talked at magic words. people aren't stupid. as president obama advanced a responsible immigration objectives? has he put his political capital

on the line? it is labor that is now the barrier to immigration reform, more than elements of the republican party. there are elements that are bad and that issue. do you think that these policies are working. the thing that the government should have 25% of gdp? -- do you think that the government should have 25% of gdp? i would ask that people take a fresh look and make up their own minds. mitt romney is a one-term governor of massachusetts. he is not like bob dole or george h. to be bush, who has been around for a long time. take a look at romney. take a look at his feet deep take. take a look at the governors, senators. you decide whether these people have reasonable public policies and what they're doing better for their constituents in the case of the governors.

>> first,>> first, to be accusea bill of insufficient commitment to rational immigration policy is like being called silly by the three stooges. [laughter] i mean that with no disrespect -- to the three stooges. [laughter] howard was married to my father's cousin. >> that is impressive. >> we never met. my point is, we have targeted immigration. it has been the republicans demagoguing it, including mitt romney. this is not the reagan republicans. if you look at the house of

representatives, the way they've votes, they have gone far to the right. the key issue is, it is one of the differences i have with some of my friends, we differ witas how much we should continue its policy of america having this worldwide roll. here is the problem. i am disappointed when people continue the same mistake bush made, to be aggressive in the world and maintain military forces, cut taxes at the same time. it is a legitimate debate about being more involved militarily. to do that and cut taxes, we have a difference about military spending. the ryan budget, "the wall street journal," praised him because he was resisting

military spending and instead cutting medicare and medicaid. that is "the wall street journal" thanking him. i believe we are overspending on the military. that is the trade off. when you talk about and more aggressive military posture, you are forcing cuts in the quality of life programs domestically, medicare and medicaid. it reduces the rate of growth, the unsustainable rate of growth of medicare and medicaid. each of the four years of obama, 1.3 trillion dollars. the total military budget with baltimore's, and i am proud to have supported them both -- with both wars, and i am proud to

have supported them balls, that is a legitimate foreign policy debate. cia everything you want is about $700 billion. it is coming down. you cannot solve the debt problem by cutting the military and it is extremely risky to do so. i am for a strong development budget, a strong reform of our state department, improving diplomacy. if we do not lead in the world that will be a more dangerous world. it is a legitimate debate but there's nothing hypocritical about paul ryan saying we need a low percentage of gdp for military spending and we need to reform medicare and medicaid otherwise we are going to go off a cliff. >> the military budget is $700 billion if you throw in intelligence and others things.

it is better than medicare. you cannot solve it from the military but not from exempting the military. when i say that ryan budget increases military spending over what president obama has a proposed, and makes up for it by reductions in medicare and medicaid, i am quoting the wall street journal from a month ago, an editorial. bill says they're cutting the rate of growth. that is right. given the fact there will be more old people 10 years from now, and the cost of medical care may go up, we are going to give them the same amount of money, it is not a technical cut. it is a real cut. that is a difference between the parties. the republicans insist military spending go up and up. we continue to have the full set

of thermonuclear weapons. we continue to be defending western europe against, i am not sure what. the fact is, the average european nation spend less than 0.5% of gdp on the military. i want us to be the strongest nation in the world. protect the military and make up for it through medicare and medicaid, their description of the rhine budget. budget. >> the idea that europe is costing us something, nukes are costing us very little. you have to decide, and you want the ability to deal with iran?

if we have to use troops in the middle east tour tennis dan, and if you think it is necessary -- >> nato is a mechanism for keeping the military budget. we have a major presence in europe and the planning is still there. in terms of the balkans, let the europeans take the lead. we have now -- wealthy nations in europe that we get to the united states. no one thing costs a lot of money. -- leave it to the united states. no one thing costs a lot of money. to republicans, to keep it from getting the vote, in andsist -- insisted on spending

in ways the military does not think is necessary. >> let me move on. let me also say there were cards on your chairs. if you have questions you would like to pose, fill them out and they will be collected and we will feed them into the debate. but we come back to israel. --e obama administration's 50% approve. last fall, the results were 40% approving, 53% disapproving. and a referendum on the president's approach to israel? >> improving. it is that compared to his general approval. he picked more fights with

israel and his voters disapproved of little more of his policies since he has been mugged by reality. he has decided they're not going to negotiate with a palestinian state while hamas controls gaza. why was the unit -- resolution introduced? they would have not thought to introduce it under bush or clinton because they knew it was a non-starter. it was because of president obama's elevation of the issuing criticism of the israeli government and seeming to side with the europeans that made them think they might get somewhere in the u.n. they did a good job solving the problem they had a partly created but they do not deserve credit for that. they are little better than now -- now than two years ago.

that is nice and important for israel. we will continue to pressure them to do the right thing for the u.s. and israel. >> is that a referendum on israel? for 22%, it is that. i would say, the speech, talking about the 1970 lines was a badly worded speech. they've understood that and pulled back from it. the rhetoric is important. the public policy is also important. you have recognition there has not been a single action that has been less than fully supportive of israel. i disagree with the notion that it was because president obama elevated a palestinian state. the palestinian state has been a strong aspect of every president for as long as i can remember.

going back to the first president bush and bill clinton and the second president bush. there has been an evolution about trying to push for things. they were frustrated by piece. i understand the president caused himself some problems by his speech. i believe, however, and this is a case where you do not always say to your friend wonderful, good for you. sometimes you have to say you may be making a mistake. i believe the settlement policy into which netanyahu has been pushed by the nature of the israeli politics, has some negative aspects for israel in terms of world opinion. i believe it is important to advise him and i would repeat i think bill is demonstrating a great accomplishment. go back and look at the media reports months before the vote and the assumption was it was going to win and they would go

to the assembly if they lost. i believe it was the inn has credibility to stop it. you have seen the effects of the bat speech are wearing off. >> let me turn to another issue, iran. there is no bigger priority than preventing them from obtaining nuclear weapons. how do you judge to president's record and how would a republican administration differ? let me start with you, bill. >> the last word is always better. >> you are being nice. >> there is a great deal of continuity here with regard to iran and north korea. it is frustrating. one of the things, one of the great frustrations is that you

tend to be so critical, and we should be, but the unwillingness of russia and china to be more supportive of offers to block nuclear weapons. if i was russia or next door to iran, the notion of some of these crazy people having nuclear weapons would make me nervous. similarly with china and north korea. it is something we have to deal with. given that what we have been doing is the best that can be done, when the israeli, when the obama administration to clover, i was approached by the israeli -- took over, i was approached by the israeli government. he was kept on. i believe we are doing as much as can be done keeping the military threat on the table. i cannot and i would stress if

you look at the bush administration's policy and the obama administration, they are similar because they are dictated by the reality. >> i agree the best aspects of the policy are those that continue the bush administration's's policy. that is true in general. keeping stewart was part of that. obama has changed a lot under iran. his general attitude toward the middle east and the muslim world. look what he did or did not do in june 2009 with the green revolution in iran was no support from us. now look to his speech where he said what some of us have been sang in longtime, you can not contain or deter this regime with nuclear weapons. they have to be prevented from

getting nuclear weapons. it becomes a questions of whether sanctions will prevent. i'm afraid they will not. diplomacy, i do not think will prevent. it may be necessary to use force. a risk the administration started to per fare for that and less time creating -- i wish the administration started to prepare for that and less time on other things. what strikes me is that his instincts when he came in, and this is his view of the world, protesters in the streets of summer 2009. >> first, there is nothing to suggest the administration would spend more time about the military on iran.

that is unfair to the people at the pentagon. they are seriously looking into that. >> the people at the pentagon and the white house aren't leaking things to try to prevent israel -- >> you said two things. there is some question about israel, which is coming pike by major israeli military figures. you said more time planning a military, less on israel. i think the first is inaccurate. secondly, in terms of the change, i think people over interpret some of the language but i guess that is a grudging acceptance of the fact the current policies are okay or acceptable. you have to criticize the fact they were not always his policies. i would have to go back to the advocate of mitt romney to

attack anybody for changing positions or impugning that is a reach. >> let me pick up a question from a member of the audience. starting with bill, talk about your support for the emergency committee for israel, which has placed advertisements anin newspapers. what do you hope to gain? >> i am sure most of view -- it is a small organization i am chairman of which we formed in mid 2009. when it seemed that the obama administration and parts of both political parties, the democratic party especially, were not strong supporters of the u.s.-relationship with israel. we have done some legal

interventions and political campaigns. we criticized some democrats in the house and the senate and some republicans, fewer, honestly, who had gone into j street criticizing netanyahu and less the palestinian authority for the impasse in the peace process and they spend a lot of time trying to prevent keeping the military on the table with respect to iran. i am pleased we have had a little bit of impact with the emergency committee. we may intervene in a couple of democratic primary races, where there is a strong pro-israel democrat in the house. i think you will see an emergency committee activity on behalf of democrats. we are not partisan but it is a fact that the ron paul wing has

been marginalized and the lot of us have fought hard for that. barney and others have fought to march on as the anti-israel wing. it is bigger. i think it is more of a problem for the left and i hope liberals marginalize those elements of their own party, as we have tried to do. >> the fact is you are talking about minuscule is bigger than microscopic. the the democratic party has been overwhelmingly and consistently supportive of a policy that respects israel's right to an independent, democratic to jewish state. you are talking about 10, 20, 25 votes, a small minority. this notion that the republicans

have marginalized and ron paul but the democratic anti-israel wing, here is the difference. do people take their differences with the policy of any israeli government, and conservatives have been critical, do you translate the that into actions that denied the support of foreign policy? the answer is that neither party wing that is critical of israel has been unwilling to support or had an impact on the policy process. when people take credit for the fact obama has been more pro- israel, we're talking about an elephant stick. people say what is there for? to keep away the elephants. they say there are no elephants. he says because my stick works. i do not think obama -- even

during the time when people were interpreting his speeches, from the beginning of this ministration, i have seen no actions taken by the obama administration or anything less than fully supportive of israel. >> let me ask another question. across the middle east, over the 16 months we have seen the collapse of regimes in libya and we continue to watch syria. has the obama administration been fast and wise enough in its response to the air about people? what would as a republican administration differently? >> there is a tendency for us to say everything that does not go right is our fault and responsibility. the arab spring has been a serious issue for us. the notion that a democracy is a good thing is something i

believe in moral the but has not always created consequences of the right sort. what is happening in egypt is a troubling with people talking about cutting off the contract. one of the best thing was the willingness of both sides to live but to it. i think the administration has been dealing winnipeg recently, including neither this administration or any republican administration has shown an eagerness to show the rulers of saudi arabia to join the press to democracy. reality constraints. how do we reconcile our belief in democracy with concerns about the negative aspects of what happens? as a matter of democratic principle, it was a good thing

because of the -- palestinian authority had actions and that hamas won them. that is a dilemma i have not yet fully worked out when elections will bring about negative consequences. it calls not for -- to give serious thought to what is involved. >> could the u.s. have steered the outcome of egypt in a different direction with a different administration? >> it is hard to say. i was for a more forward leaning policy. this is a tough choice. most of the foreign policy communities on how to handle this, how much influence, i am part of the anti-saudi arabia wing. i will agree imi minority -- i

am a minority. there are people that causes people to say it is a wonderful place. if we had more energy development that tom, we would be less likely -- >> i think it is lawrence of arabia. >> i think the arabs during is complicated. i have been on the hopeful side of those -- we are not going to prop up a bunch of dictators. i think the administration fell back a little bit. this is a failure of government bureaucracy, they could have done more on the ground in terms of economic development. to get serious second development -- economic development, this is a case where the u.s. government has not adjusted to the realities as well as it should.

one of these things i would criticize obama for, this is not partisan, they talk about soft power, smart power, bush used hard part. they have not reformed the u.s. government as much as they should have. it's money does not go to grass roots. public diplomacy has not been as improved as secretary clinton hoped. this should be an effort to adapt to some of the realities of the world we live in. the one place i would urge the obama administration to be more forward leaning is in syria. that is a government that is an ally of iran and is a terrible government in terms of human rights and is a strategic enemy of hours. we should do more to stop the

slaughter and tried to effectuate the toppling of the assad government. i would do like what we did in libya. a no fly zone. >> here is one of the criticisms of people who advocate that. there are people who do not think we're doing enough in syria, at some point, if you're going to expand the military reach, raise taxes to pay for it. [applause] i think there is a problem with my congressional colleagues who are all for doing more militarily -- the other thing is, as far as a in egypt, -- aid in egypt, it is hard to do that. the point is this, non-

partisan, not everything that goes wrong is the fault of the incumbent administration. we have been guilty of it ourselves. we have taken on the responsibility. you read the newspaper, there was this massacre. where is the government? in washington, trying to think about what to do. we should not be in a position where there is an expectation american resolve every problem everywhere. it becomes an unfair metric for any administration. i have used it -- seen it used against both. [applause] >> we have a question in the audience about iran. if sanctions against iran do not work, how long should we wait before pursuing a military option? are there differences in the timetables that a second obama administration or romney administration would apply?

>> this is one of those things you cannot predict. and you administration often does things people do not expect them to do, more hawkish or more dovish. i believe governor romney has spoken about the unacceptability of a nuclear iran. obama has moved to that view. they do not sound that different from each other. what is acceptable for israel as opposed to us? i believe that if military force will be used, it will be better for the u.s. this is our responsibility. you cannot do everything everywhere. we should not blame the administration for everything that goes wrong on their watch but there are certain basic things we need to do around the world and one of them is to

maintain some kind of a lid on nuclear proliferation. radical regimes getting their hands on nuclear weapons. iran would be a game changer in terms of a nuclear arms race in the middle east. it would be much harder to deter them. that is a huge issue. i trusted the wrong the administration to handle it and i hope president obama does the right thing if reelected. i hope he will do the right thing even during the campaign. >> except for the unjustified partisan the thing at the end, there has been no difference between the administration's. the president has said we rule out containment. that means to take military action because that is the

other option. as to when, there is no difference between the administration's. you are now talking about probably the most serious military undertaking since vietnam. in fact -- in terms of iran's kempe ability elsewhere, what she will have to do with some careful planning, israelis, the saudis, others will have to worry about the iraqi government we helped install, we need to do serious planning. either president would say, ok, we are at a point where we have to act. they are about to have a weapon. what can we do? that means planning for a

military action in conjunction with the other nations. it becomes a complicated problem. any president would be working with his defense and intelligence establishments as to what to do. it is unfair for israel to be asked to take on this burden. one of the things we learn from the wikileaks cable, which was a terrible abuse, we learn how scared many of the arab states are of iran. this fear of iran and wishes someone would do something goes far beyond the israelis. it would be unfair to put the burden on them now. >> we have been encouraging energy independence since the 1970's.

it is better for our economy and for national security. is that a goal that is shared by president obama and governor romney? how can we best advanced toward that goal? >> full independence is not realistic. we have a very easy opportunity to build a pipeline near canada. a lot of labor unions are for it. independence is good, and the environment is good, but there is tension between them. environmentalists are a very powerful force in the obama administration.

one of the great thing that has happened is the national gas breakthrough. it is happening in north dakota and texas. the obama administration has come down on the side of the extreme environmentalist, against those who would like to develop more energy here. >> we tend to be more negative. we have been making progress. the dependence on foreign oil has dropped some. we have mexico, we have canada. we have others. there is more drilling going on. the overall total of drilling has gone up. alternatives are a part of this.

there is a notion that the fact we have to import from the middle east strains our foreign- policy. i have not seen evidence of that. one criticism i have of some of my colleagues who want to bomb iran, there is no question that it is american policy contemplating a military attack on the iran nuclear facilities, and americans have been tough on sanctions. the good news is that the fact that what we are doing with regard to iran has not deterred some political factor in america from going forward. we have over estimated that it has been a constraint on foreign policy. >> it comes to a question of

america's role in the world. over the last few years, we have seen the resurgence turn attention homeward -- the resurgence to turn attention homeward. what will america do to remain the world's greatest power? what would you say to people who believe fixing our own problems is our first priority? >> i believe we can reduce a worldwide military expenditure at no cost to our security. there is an element of people are going to maintain the status quo. i would like to restrain it

more. we have a notion that it is part of america's purpose, that america should not be a nation of shopkeepers. we have a moral responsibility to be the leaders of the world. we overestimate the ability we have to do that. i would be morally complected -- i do not think we should be trying to build in afghanistan or a rock -- iraw a democratic society because you cannot do that with the military. you have this out -- reliance on our allies on us. there is a greater role to be played. libya was a good example.

insist. to in sixsis - we need to pay more attention to home. we need to reduce the deficit. to do so we have to curtail military spending, increase taxes, particularly on wealthy people, and cut domestically. the republicans say forget about any tax increases on wealthy people. spend more on the military. take it out of programs that enhance the quality of life here. that is an error. >> some of the countries we want to assume a greater role in defense responsibility are a little strapped themselves. >> we are also strapped. i am not talking about poor countries.

i am talking about germany, france, italy. they have a temporary problem. less than-- pay half of their gdp. if you look at the programs they have -- medical programs and others -- there are people who are giving their citizens substantially greater social benefits than we give our citizens because we are paying the military budget. the self sufficient. >> one of the conditions for a strong america abroad -- the world would be immeasurably more

dangerous to the degree of the american involvement. you can wish germany and sweden and spain send more predicts been more on defense and be more responsible in stopping genocide in africa. those wishes will not be worth much in the near future. every administration tries to go to europe and get some to have civil war defense. they spent a ton on their welfare states. they are going bankrupt during that period that is not a sustainable model. we need to be strong at home to be strong and barred -- abroad. a world in which we cut defense spending by 30% to keep peace in

most of the middle east war in places like the balkans, i do not think that is practical. it is too high a risk to run. president obama sees it as too high a risk to run. at least he has rejected those people within his party who want to withdraw from afghanistan or radical cuts in the defense budget. >> is there a difference between the parties on american as socialism on american responsibility. -- exceptionalism and responsibility to tackle that is an interesting term. i do not like it. it issues in current debate. america should stand for american principles. the republicans have a more robust interventionist view on

america's role on the world. many democrats have shared that view. there will be a difference on foreign and defense policy between obama and romney. i am happy about the obama administration moving away from a particular view of the world to a more centrist foreign- policy. i worry about a certain aspect of the foreign policy, especially with the defense cuts. a republican administration with romney would be a slightly better foreign-policy than obama's second term. he has come back to the center because of political pressure and because of the 2010

elections and because of concern for the 2012 elections. he said once my last election is over, i will have more flexibility. what direction was that flexibility go into form policy? >> we are merging into the closing statements. if you could continue for a couple of minutes. we will give each of you two minutes to conclude. not just on foreign policy, but on other policies. >> i want to make the case were being open-minded. it will be a vice presidential pick by governor romney in three debates between romney and obama

and the vice presidential debate. the push to go into them with an open mind. people will have strong views, but they will be committed. there will be a fair number of undecided voters. to what makes more sense in terms of america's future. whether obama's administration has been successful or not. my plea to people to may have -- that may have its mind made up is to be open-minded and think hard about the choices ahead. do not think about george bush. i promise not to raise the problem of george mcgovern. take a look at the actual choice before us in 2012.

[applause] >> i was impressed with people -- bill's urging people to be open-minded. >> i have been open-minded. we praise the obama administration for certain things. >> you are not open-minded about the election. i do not pretend that they should be open. if you have decided views about elements of public policy, and you do not know if he will vote for obama or romney, something is the matter with you. [laughter] >> that is a foolish statement. i know people who do not know who they will vote for. they are not stupid people. they are conflicted. that is not an unreasonable

thing for people to do. [applause] >> that is different. there is a small number of people who tend to have those conflicting views. you are saying to be open about the whole thing. most people who are following thing closely will know now who they will vote for. there are no surprises coming. i read the focus groups they do in october of the undecided voters. they are not an impressive group of people. [laughter] they do not know a lot of things that are true. they are convinced of fantasies. [laughter] i think bill is guilty of campaign by innuendo. not a specific public policy has

he shown are talked about or alluded to where obama was too far to the left compared to where he was -- is today. in the 2008 election, obama was criticized for talking about intervention and afghanistan and pakistan. this is a myth that obama move to a more realistic position. i would like him to be moving out of afghanistan quicker. this notion that he was for the to the left and moved. on israel, i have seen nothing negative. we had a republican party that is to the right of ronald reagan, where mitt romney attacks santorum voting to raise the debt limit. let increased military spending

so we can make cuts from what otherwise would be there. that is a radical agenda in the social area with regards to the rights of lesbian and gay people, and remain -- women's reproduction rights. the republicans have so militantly opposed immigration. people are frightened. the little bilingualims is creeping into the republican party. they are learning how to count in spanish. you have a clear choice between a right wing on a public inside and an ministration that has made progress. i hope people will decide that way. >> thank you. [applause]

thank you for being a part of this debate. please stay in your seats. we are about to begin the next portion of the program. police say while i exited the debaters out. >> the libertarian party selected its nominee an los vegas. c-span will have live coverage beginning at noon he's done with the presidential selection process. we will hear speeches from the candidates. we will also have live coverage saturday of several campaign events with the president and first lady. they will start off in columbus, ohio. you can watch that the fed at 12:55 p.m. eastern at cspan.org. the next stop will be in richmond at 4:35 p.m. eastern.

they will be on the campus of virginia commonwealth university. spend the weekend in oklahoma city with the tv and american history to the. check in on literary life with both tv on c-span two. 2. sunday oklahoma history on american history tv on c-span 3. for the oklahoma city bombing memorial. a look into african-american life in 1920's oklahoma and native american artifacts. once a month c-span's local content expands on cities across america. this weekend on oklahoma city.

>> defense secretary leon panetta appeal to u.s. troops to refrain from misconduct. his remarks came in response to the release of photos depicting troops posing with body parts and urinated on corpse. he praised the soldiers for their service. he said the agreement signed clear at the u.s. will finish the job in afghanistan. >> good afternoon. thank you very much for that introduction. it is always a great pleasure to be able to be with you, especially here at fort benning.

you have shown tremendous leadership. soldiers and their families are a part of our military family. i would like to recognize those who serve in our military. we thank you for all you have done. thank you to general bradley. we have seen a lot of new things that may fort benning the best

installation in the world. it is an inspiring sight to see so many soldiers gathered in one place. this is a big crowd. one thing i have learned in life, especially as a member of congress, is you've never have enough sledgehammers. you have to have more power than the other guys in a fight. when i heard i would be here, i asked someone to spend some time off kelley hill. he said this brigade is not fancy, but they are tough.

he told me about each of the units that make up this brigade. i hear you like to sound off. i want to see if that is true. we have the queen of battle. we have the can do battalion. present and accounted for. the third battalion.

the rock support. the king of battle. the mighty eagles. this is my first time at fort benning as secretary of defense. that was almost 50 years ago. i went through the drills.

i have been through the swamps and the red mud. i have lots of warm memories of fort benning. like many of you, this was the first introduction to real army life. it made me a soldier. it made me understand what being a soldier was all about. i have had a chance to visit here.

the treatment i am getting here today as secretary is nicer than what i got here as a lieutenant. although the chow is about the same. the main reason i am here today and the main reason when i go to other posts and visit the battlefield, the main reason is to thank you. thank you for making the decision to step forward and serve this country. each of you has made a very courageous and important decision to serve this nation at a time of war. i am a believer in public service.

our democracy depends on those who are willing to serve and make this country a better place for those that follow. i am the son of italian immigrants. my parents came to this country in the early 1930's. i used to ask my dad, "why would you do that? why would you travel to a strange country?" they came from a poor area in italy. they had the comfort of family. they had no money or skills. they had no language ability. why would they do that? my father said the reason that he and my mother did it was to

give their children a better life. that is the american dream. that is what all of us want for our children and what our children will love for their children, a better life, a secure life. we depend on you to make sure that you protect this country, that we keep america safe so that our kids can enjoy the opportunity this country has to offer.

i thank you for your willingness to put your lives on the line, and i also want to thank your families. they have to sacrifice as well long periods of absence, long moments away on holidays, special events within the family. half of the american people, i thank you and i thank them for their sacrifice, for their dedication, and for their loyalty to this country. as far as i am concerned, all of your families are a part of our fighting force.

this country has asked the soldiers of this brigade and the 93rd infantry division to shoulder a heavy burden over a decade of war. the hammer brigade deployed four times to iraq. from the initial march to baghdad in 2003, to the worst days of the insurgency, to operation new dawn, soldiers of the brigade fought, and yes, died, to give iraq a chance to govern itself.

many of you deployed there. many of you lost brothers and sisters in that fight. 77 heroes from that brigade gave their last full measure of devotion in iraq. we will never forget these brave men and women, nor will we ever forget what they accomplished. they put their lives on the line to achieve an important mission. because of their sacrifice, the american people are safer today. because of all that you have accomplished, we were able to

bring iraq and the iraq war to an honorable conclusion last december. this week, the president made an important trip to afghanistan. we are now working to try to bring that war to a response will end as well. last year was in many ways a turning point in our effort in afghanistan. violence increased for the first time in years. their security responsibility was able to secure their country. that began as well. the taliban has been a weakened. they have been unable to

organize a group to regain territory that has been lost. they have been weakened. their momentum has been broken. al-qaida's leadership has been decimated. we recognize the first year anniversary of taking down osama bin laden. that was due to military professionalism of soldiers who went in there and did a mission they do repeatedly in afghanistan. it was for that reason that i was confident that that mission would be accomplished.

afghan national security forces have grown steadily. they are more capable of being able to engage in operations to provide security and to do the job they have to do if their country is going to be able to be strong and sovereign in the future. we have accomplished transitions. we have transitioned areas in afghanistan that represent 50% of the population. in may, we will do another series of provinces that will be transitioned. by the end of summer, 80% of the afghan population will be under afghanistan security and

control. the strategic partnership agreement that president barack obama signed in kabul this week affirmed that this transition plan is on track. it sends a signal to our enemies and our partners that we will finish the job right in afghanistan. we have a commitment to afghanistan and to its people. if we keep our eye focused on this mission, as i know you well, we will defeat al-qaida and deny them the ability to

rebuild. we will deny them the safe haven that they used to plan an attack on our country. they may have attacked us once. they will not do it again. too much blood has been spilled. too much progress has been made to lose sight of the mission. there is no doubt there will be challenges ahead. we will face a determined adversary. we will face extremists. they will try to attack america. our enemies are losing on the battlefield.

they will seek any opportunity to damage us. they have sought to take advantage of a series of troubling incidents that involved misconduct on the part of a few who do not represent the vast majority of those in uniform who serve this country. that brings me to the last point i want to make. i need everyone -- and all of your fellow service members -- to always display the strongest character, the greatest

discipline, and the utmost integrity in everything you do. in visiting the infantry museum, i had a chance to see those on the values as you enter that museum. loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and courage. those are the standards. those are the standards that mark men and women that serve in our military. you are proud to wear a uniform of your country and you strive to live up to the highest

standards that we expect of you. the reality is we are fighting a different kind of war. we are living in a different kind of world. it takes only seconds for a picture to become an international headline. those headlines can impact the mission that we are engaged in. it can put your fellow service members at risk. it can hurt morale. it can damage our standing in the world. they can cost lives. i know that none of you

deliberately acts to hurt your mission or to put to our fellow soldiers at risk. you are the best. that is why i am here today. i want to tell you that i need you. i need your leadership. i need your courage. i need your strength. we need to make sure that we always abide by the highest standards. i know these incidents represent a very small percentage of the great work that our men and women do across this world. it is a very small percentage of people that sometimes make these terrible mistakes. these incidents concern me.

they have to concern you. they do concern our service chiefs. a few who lack judgment, lack leadership, can hurt all of us. it can hurt all of us who serve this country with distinction. they concern us because our enemies will seek to turn them, these incidents, in their favor at the moment that they are losing the war. i want you to always remember who you are, and the great country that you serve, and what we are all part of.

you are part of the best fighting force on the face of the earth never forget that. its greatness lies in the quality of our people. we have great aircraft, tanks, technology, but it is the character and the standards that each of you bring to the battle that makes us strong. we can often be better than our word, but we can never be better than our actions. our actions speak a lot for all

of us. never forget that, and never forget that you have a responsibility to look after your fellow soldiers and to represent the american people that you are sworn to defend. i know that all of you can meet this challenge. you are the best. i have the greatest confidence in your ability to make all americans proud by demonstrating the finest character and willingness to fight. the bottom line is that all of us have to be willing to fight to make this country great. there is a great story that i often tell -- the rabbi and the

priest who decided they would get to know each other and learn about each other's religion. one night they went to a boxing match. just before the bell rang, one of the boxers made the sign of the cross. the rabbi nudged the priest and said, "what does that mean?" the priest said, "it does not mean a damn thing if he cannot fight." we often prayed that our country will be ok and that somehow we will prevail. it does not mean a damn thing if we are not willing to fight for it. the hammer brigade is always willing to fight to keep america safe, to make sure our

children have that better life, but most importantly to always make sure we have a government of, by, and for people. god bless you. god bless this brigade. god bless the american people. thank you very much. thank you. if you have some questions, i am happy to answer. >> i am lieutenant walker.

with the military transitioning away from counter insurgency and towards a hybrid threat like we trained against, what will be the role of the armored force during and after this transition? >> we have been going through the process of looking at strategy for the future. we are at this turning point after 10 years of war and because we are facing a record deficit. it is important to look at how we protect the finest force. the service chiefs and i sat down and said, "what do we need to look at?"

what do we need to make sure we have the best military force in the world for now and beyond?" we came up with a strategy that involves five elements. number one -- we know we will be smaller because as you drawdown after these wars, regardless of budget constraints, we are likely to be smaller. we will be. we need to be agile, quickly deployable, technologically advanced, and flexible. this has got to be a force that can move quickly and be able to engage quickly. secondly, we have got to focus our attention on a two key areas of the world that involve the greatest threats to the

country -- one is the pacific and to maintain a strong presence in the pacific, and the other is the middle east. make sure we are there, and we are present, and we are able to deal with potential conflicts there. thirdly, we also need to have a presence in the rest of the world. to do that, we talked about developing a capability to have rotational presence in other areas to be able to rotate brigades so we can engage, and provide assistance, and develop partnerships we need in the world of the future.

that is a role that will be played not just by special forces, or the marines, but by the army as well. fourthly, we have to be able to engage and defeat more than one enemy at a time. we have to be able to do that. that requires a strong fighting force. it requires what you are training for. it requires your ability to engage. in the end, it is boots on the ground. that is what you represent. lastly, we have to invest. this cannot just be about cutting. we have to invest in the future. we have to invest in the technologies of the future. we have to invest in cyber. that is a new battle front for the future.

we face cyber attacks every day. you can use cyber to paralyze country. you can bring down the power grid. you can bring down our financial or government system. we have to invest in a cyber for the future. we have to invest in space. there are new technologies being developed every day. we have to invest in unmanned systems. special forces operations are key for the future as well. investing is important. quickly.o wilmobilize

that is a summary of the strategy we have put in place and build our budget around. that means every branch of our military has to be prepared in the best way to engage forever enemy we have to confront. let me tell you, as an army -- old army guy, the army is going to help lead the way in the future. [applause] >> we have time for one more question. >> with the army cutting back, what is the purpose of cutting brigade? s? >> on the army, on that issue,

the general and i have discussed how we will approach this in terms of the future. as i said, as a result of 10 years of war and the drawdown that would take place as a result of iraq and afghanistan, the decision was we would gradually have to reduce the number of brigades in the army as well. the number we are looking at, over 10 years, will go from about 580, which is the high point we are at right now, and gradually reduced down to 490, which is above the number we had before 9/11. we will maintain brigades. we are going to maintain a strong army in the future.

that is important. it will be an army that will have to engage in some of these missions that we talked about. while there will be some transition down over 10 years, while that will happen in the marines and elsewhere, the key for us is going to be to maintain the finest military that we can for the future. the other point i want to make is that we have also made a commitment. the one thing we do not want to do -- every time we come to a time where we draw down after war, we have made terrible mistakes in the past. whether it was world war ii but correa -- vietnam, korea -- what happened was when that right one away, we cut across the board and hollowed

out the military. we will not repeat that mistake. i will not cut across the board. [applause] what ever army units have, the marines that we have, the navy, the air force, we will give them the best training, equipment, benefits that they need in order to be the strongest military in the world. that is one of the things we tried to do in our budget is to make sure that as we make some reductions over the next 10 years that we also invest and make sure you have what you need to fight the battle. it the other thing we may clear is we will not break faith with you in terms of the benefits we promised you. we are committed to you and to your families. [applause]

we asked you to go to war and deploy time and time again, and for that reason, we said those who are serving today will get that werets' efits promised. this is a challenging time. we face a fight in congress and additional challenges. i am convinced the service chiefs and all of us have put together a strategy for the future. that will do one thing -- keep america of the strongest military in the world. it will protect this country, and it will give our children that better life that we all care about. which is crossed his. thank you very much. [applause]

>> saturday we will take a look at the latest jobs numbers. the unemployment rate dropped in april. it added 115,000 jobs, less than forecasted. heather smith will discuss the historical impact of the youth vote. the co-founder of the international civil rights system and museum will talk about race relations and civil rights in the u.s..

>> i am afraid of my other family member's lives. we have installed several video cameras. even with an electric fence. now he won it -- he won the security officers in my house. the security officer said we want to see what else can be done. >> watch the hearing online at the c-span video library. you can clip portions to e-mail and post. >> i do not regard this as just a biography of lyndon johnson.

i want each book to examine political power in america. this is the kind of political power. see what a president can do in a time of crisis. what does he do to get legislation moving, to take command of washington? that is a way of examining power in the time of crisis. i wanted to do this in full. i said let's examine this. >> the passage of power, volume 4. this is a multi volume biography. look for our second hour of conversation sunday, may 20. >> gary johnson says he would abolish the irs and the education department if he were

president. the former new mexico governor ran in the republican primary before dropping out in december 2011. he is expected to be chosen as the libertarian party presidential nominee on saturday. [applause] >> good evening. welcome to the delegates of the 2012 libertarian national convention. welcome to our friends and the c-span audience. welcome to all who support the cause of human the city -- liberty. tonight is the final candidate debate. there have been several of them.

only two candidates have survive a rigorous process to qualify for this debate. they are coming on stage. he is from burnett, texas. our second candidate is gary johnson. he is the former governor of new mexico. he is currently a resident of charleston, new mexico.

each candidate will have a three minute opening statement. they can tell you just about anything they would like to tell you. after that we will have questions. each candidate will have 90 seconds to answer the questions. there is a possibility of rebuttals if something comes up. that could use a quick rebuttal. those who bottles are limited to 30 seconds. at the conclusion, we will have a three minute concluding statement. we have a timer so all of us will see how much time has elapsed and help us in keeping things in order delegates have had the opportunity to submit some questions. we have some of those. i will try to present those in

this format. with that introduction, i would like to begin. i will alternate in the response times. that seems fair. mr. johnson, will you begin with your three minutes opening statement? >> government in this country needs to occur under strict adherence to the u.s. constitution. the bad news is this country is in really deep trouble. we are going to experience a collapse in government. we will experience a monastery collapse because we are borrowing money. that is the bad news. the good news is we can fix this. we went to the moon. we can fix this. we need to stop printing money.

we need to slash spending. we need to do that now. [applause] i am making three promises. first, i promise to submit a balanced budget to congress in the year 2013. congress will have to go along with that. i will submit a document with a $1.40 trillion

i have no aversion to be to win legislation. with those promises kept, spending will be lower than any other possible scenario that you can come up with. i am a promising to advocate on the part of the ruling out the entire federal tax system. no income tax, no tax withholding. abolish the irs. replace it with a consumption tax, which i think sets the stage for zero attacks. i think the pressure will be on the consumption tax. i am advocating the fair tax. russia will be on that tax to

reduce it to the point where we do not have taxes any longer but at a minimum it is an improvement over what we have. it is cost neutral. it gives america a competitive edge when it comes to exports. it is the answer when it comes to china, and it is the answer when it comes to jobs in this country because in a zero corporate tax rate environment, it the private sector does not create jobs there is no environment under which that will happen. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for having me. i feel like i am at a family reunion. i wish america could be in this room with us to feel what we

have here, something that is so different from politics in america today. i am running for president. this is for you america. this is for you so i can leave you alone. [applause] the greatest problem we have is we have learnt to seek our solutions from government. that makes us different. we have learned that government is not the solution. it exacerbates the problems that we have. my campaign promise is when i become president is to deliver peace. [applause] i am not just talking about the

foreign interventions. i am talking about the wars we have here at home. they are breaking as economically and morally. i am reminded in 1960's when president johnson had his great society. we will have a war on poverty. no more for people. the war did not work. president, richard carter gave as the education department because he knew how hard it was to raise our children. we have been turning out functional illiterates ever since. war on drugs has got to stop. we have done the research.

where does not work. you do not teach people it is wrong to kill people by killing people. you do not teach foreign countries it is wrong to bomb people by bombing other countries. i am glad to be able to offer of libertarians and america and rational alternatives and true tortoises, something that we sorely need. join me in saying i am not at war. if enough of us say it, they cannot have it anymore. [applause] >> we will go into the question and answer portion.

tell us about your discovery of the libertarian party and what brought you to join it. >> i discovered it in the latter part of the 1990's. my journey to this party has been different. my father raised a libertarian. i do not know that my father has ever voted. he raised a libertarian, someone that knows how to mind their own business when they are supposed to and be helpful to their neighbor when they need it. to be responsible for yourself. this is a life choice. it is more than a political party. it is more than the people in this from. we have a personal choice.

ourselves,nsibly for not to seek help from government agencies, but to be sufficient on our own. that was the natural way that i was raised. in 1976, i was a brand new voter. i lived in north carolina. there was the libertarian party there. even then, i cannot bring myself to register as a democrat or republican. the only thing i have ever been registered of the the libertarian is an unregistered voters. . >> in 1971, i got a book handed

to me. it says here is what it is to be a libertarian. is that after you have read this, passed this book on so that others may understand what it is to be a libertarian. when i read that book, i recognize that i was a libertarian. i have been 1 cents. i came away from reading that -- one since. i came away from reading that with the notion that you always be able to predict where a libertarian stands on issues. everything has a basis in freedom. as long as our freedom does not impose on others, you should be free to exert that freedom. i passed that book on. i remember attending a congressional debate in new mexico in the early 1980's. the discussion in the bar after word was who won the debate?

the libertarian won the debate, but who will we vote for because the libertarian will not win. that has been the course of the party. i got to serve eight years as governor of new mexico as a libertarian candid under the guise of being a republican. [applause] i have come out of the closet. i hope i am the first of millions to do the same. >> i know from my past

experience that there are a couple of questions that come up to libertarian question -- candidates. i represent the one at a time. i will see how you will do. what is the libertarian party? >> it is the party that will stand up for personal freedom. it is the party that will advocate on government's absent responsibility, which is the notion to protect us from groups or corporations that would to us harm. the libertarian party encompasses the best of both the donkeys and elephants. that is the notion that the donkeys have stood up historically for civil liberties. they have not done so well lately. they had not done so well as ever. republicans' historic plea by

the ones that stood up $4 and cents. they have not done so well lately. i do not know if they have ever done well by that. they encompass the best of both parties. it the no show the notion of social liberty and tolerance. [applause] that is where i stand. majority of americans stand there. that it's your foot in the door. what are the problems and solutions facing this country? as someone running for president of the united states, did you have a resin made that suggest you could carry out what it is that you are -- do you have a resonate that suggest that you can carry out what you are talking about? >> as i have said, the

libertarian party is my family. [applause] it should be to everyone. it should be a home. the libertarian party is america. it is everyone of us. we realize the problems we face are caused by the government that is supposed to be serving us. we wind up serving the government instead of the other way around. we realize that this is our way of defending ourselves against the aggression of democrats and republicans that care more about corporate interests and the people they are supposed to represent. i will yield the rest of my

time. [laughter] >> we will see if we can make good use of it. what is libertarianism? >> it is a life decision, a life choice. we decided we want to make our own decisions without anyone being involved -- our medical decisions, our marriage. the most intimate, personal questions that we need to resolve the to be done so by ourselves, not a set of bureaucrats hundreds of miles away. they are more interested in themselves than they are about me. [applause] we realize it is ok to be

different because we understand that a government that cannot protect us at the mall where we are able bodied cannot take care of us at an older age. toknow that's we are better make our own decisions then to put those decisions in the hands of someone else. every time i have put decisions in someone else's hand, my fate becomes uncertain. i have given them the power over me. libertarians no better than to do that. that is why i am here. [applause] >> mr. johnson. >> just do not tell me what to

do. [applause] if i will put others in harm's way, or do harm to others, yes, government needs to be involved. it is individualism. ayn rand put into words what i the pulive by, and that is power of the individual. what can i do to affect the lives of others in a positive way. it is to be the best i can be. that is libertarianism -- the freedom to make choices for ourselves in the context of not doing any harm to others. [applause]

>> this will go to you first, mr. johnson. really want to' end the federal government's war on drugs? we're doing so lead to excessive drug use and crime -- would doing so lead to excessive drug use and crime? >> 40 years ago when the libertarian party was founded, what were people pointing and saying as a whole? that is the party that wants to legalize drugs. that was 40 years ago. when i heard that, i wanted to understand what that demand. it did not take long to understand that and how much better it would be to legalize drugs. i came to that understanding.

drugs. we should be able to make our own choices when it comes to drugs. let's legalize drugs, control it, regulate it, attacks it. 40 years ago, our party talks about legalizing drugs. now we're at a tipping point where 50% of americans now support legalizing marijuana. that has never happened before. who deserves credit for that? the libertarian party deserves credit for that. there is an opportunity here with the libertarian party that they collectively are saying that is the party that has talked about legalizing drugs. we understand it. what else is the libertarian party talking about. there is an opportunity to change the world. i am talking about the

libertarian party changing the world. [applause] >> there is a drug problem in this country, and horrible one. it is called the drug war. [applause] i have heard it all. i have been a run a long time. we do not want our children to get high all the time. we want our children to stop killing. they are killing themselves of the drugs. the money they can make off drugs. this is because we are prohibiting it. [applause] america needs to take a lesson from her own history. we had a little prohibition

problem in the last century because nobody wanted anyone to have a dream. we prohibited alcohol. it created one of the largest criminal organizations the world has ever known, the mafia. it was fun organized petty crimes. the outlawed alcohol, and they turned it into a criminal enterprise that is still going to day. we have to learn from our history. to's stop sending people prison. let's send them to treatment. [applause] >> where do libertarian's stand on the question of whether individuals have the right to own and carry guns? [laughter] >> i do not know about the rest of you all, but it is not a good

idea to call in my window after midnight. -- crawl in my window after midnight. [applause] i do not dial 911. [laughter] the founders knew what they were doing. it the only mistake they made in the bill of rights was they put the first right wrong. the second amendment should have been the first. without the ability to defend ourselves, all of the other rights can go away. the founders of this country did not institute the second amendment because they were afraid of their neighbors. they knew they needed them to protect themselves from government. [applause]

the american revolution was kicked off when the british marched to take away their guns. [applause] they tolerated everything else, the taxes, but when it came to their arms, this country went into revolution. i believe in gun control. that is why i use both hands. [applause] >> i think government's needs to occur under strict adherence. to the united states constitution. running for governor of new mexico the first time, in 1994, what was a cutting edge issue

was concealed carry. not many states allow for concealed carry, but it was an issue of the day. i had many republican opponent who were very well established. when they came to the question of concealed carry, everybody was seeming to tap dance. when the question came to me, i said that sounds like a really good idea. it sounds like a what action reduce gun violence not increase it. [applause] that ended up as headlines in the paper. i am not the guy who is going to sign off on legislation or promote legislation as the number of bullet in the club, the size of the gun, or the caliber -- bullet in the clip, the size of the gun, or the caliber of the weapon.

>> what does your party 122 about the problems associated with the legal emigration. legal immigration, a good thing. i think we should make it as easy as possible for somebody who wants to come into this country and work to get a work visa. not a green card, not check and the social security cards and other applicable taxes would get

paid. taxes are not an issue of all, whether you are legal, illegal, a visitor, a u.s. citizen, you're not going to be able to avoid paying a fair tax. with regard to the 11 million country right now, we need to can document those in legal immigrants. what is the reason we have 11 million in illegal immigrants? it is the unintended consequence of reagan setting up his amnesty government in charge of quotas, matching a businesses with potential employees. country and work, you can i get a work visa, and yet you know if you come across -- you cannot know if you come across the occurred. around the border. prohibition related. mexico goes away. >> this is a good subject, particularly for libertarians because illegal immigration is an area where we can truly show how the government has made things worse.

how many of you watch stossel? you are a ph.d. and you live in india and you want to immigrate between five-seven years. it gets better. takes to 131 years. do not know too many 131-year- old people running around. the reason we have a problem is because we have made it impossible for people to follow the law. if you write a law that can be followed, nobody is going to follow it. [applause]

i mean, we have literally, literally made it easier to swim the rio grande then to climb mount bureaucracy. that is the problem. >> the social security program does not appear to be sustainable as currently constituted. what would a libertarian president do about that? >> i know what i would do about it. libertarians believe in contracts. we believe in the sanctity of those contracts, individual contracts. that is what we base our -- the way we do business with each other. social security is a contract. our government has made a contract with each one of us individually and a promise to take care of us.

social security is honor the contract that we have our team made but stop making new contracts that we know are bad. let's stop lying to young people in this country and telling them the money is going to be there when it ain't going to be there. [applause] we need to stop lying to america. stop telling people they're going to get something when they know that they are not. they are already bankrupt. honor the contracts we are made and stop making new bad contracts. let people keep their money and plan for their own retirement. you take better care of yourself than the government can never take of you. >> social security is a problem that has really paled in comparison to medicare. social security is absolutely stable, if you will, and it happens through the following way.

it is a system that needs to take in more money than it pays out. to reform social security, raising the retirement age, coming up with their means testing, at changing it from the wage index to the inflation rate and then perhaps having an often/opt out provision.

. .

they would have not thought to introduce it under bush or clinton because they knew it was a non-starter. it was because of president obama's elevation of the issuing criticism of the israeli government and seeming to side with the europeans that made them think they might get

somewhere in the u.n. they did a good job solving the problem they had a partly created but they do not deserve credit for that. they are little better now than two years ago. that is nice and important for israel. we will continue to pressure them to do the right thing for the u.s. and israel. >> is that a referendum on israel? for 22%, it is that. i would say, the speech, talking about the 1970 lines was a badly worded speech. they've understood that and pulled back from it. the rhetoric is important. the public policy is also important. you have recognition there has not been a single action that has been less than fully supportive of israel.

i disagree with the notion that it was because president obama elevated a palestinian state. the palestinian state has been a strong aspect of every president for as long as i can remember. going back to the first president bush and bill clinton and the second president bush. there has been an evolution about trying to push for things. they were frustrated by piece. -- by peace. i understand the president caused himself some problems by his speech. i believe, however, and this is a case where you do not always say to your friend wonderful, good for you. sometimes you have to say you may be making a mistake. i believe the settlement policy into which netanyahu has been pushed by the nature of the israeli politics, has some negative aspects for israel in terms of world opinion. i believe it is important to

advise him and i would repeat i think bill is demonstrating a great accomplishment. go back and look at the media reports months before the vote and the assumption was it was going to win and they would go to the assembly if they lost. i believe it was the inn has credibility to stop it. you have seen the effects of the bat speech are wearing off. >> let me turn to another issue, iran. there is no bigger priority than preventing them from obtaining nuclear weapons. how do you judge to president's record and how would a republican administration differ? let me start with you, bill. >> the last word is always better. >> you are being nice. >> there is a great deal of continuity here with regard to

iran and north korea. it is frustrating. one of the things, one of the great frustrations is that you tend to be so critical, and we should be, but the unwillingness of russia and china to be more supportive of offers to block nuclear weapons. if i was russia or next door to iran, the notion of some of these crazy people having nuclear weapons would make me nervous. similarly with china and north korea. it is something we have to deal with. given that what we have been doing is the best that can be done, when the israeli, when the obama administration took over, i was approached by the israeli government. asking to make sure levy

continued in his position. i did that. he was kept on. i believe we are doing as much as can be done keeping the military threat on the table. i cannot and i would stress if you look at the bush administration's policy and the obama administration, they are similar because they are dictated by the reality. >> i agree the best aspects of the policy are those that continue the bush administration's's policy. that is true in general. keeping stewart was part of that. obama has changed a lot under iran. his general attitude toward the middle east and the muslim world.

look what he did or did not do in june 2009 with the green revolution in iran was no support from us. now look to his speech where he said what some of us have been sang in longtime, you can not contain or deter this regime with nuclear weapons. they have to be prevented from getting nuclear weapons. it becomes a questions of whether sanctions will prevent. i'm afraid they will not. diplomacy, i do not think will prevent. it may be necessary to use force. i wish the administration started to prepare for that and less time on other things. what strikes me is that his instincts when he came in, and this is his view of the world, protesters in the streets of summer 2009.

>> first, there is nothing to suggest the administration would spend more time about the military on iran. that is unfair to the people at the pentagon. they are seriously looking into that. >> the people at the pentagon leakinghite house aren' things to try to prevent israel -- >> you said two things. there is some question about israel, which is coming pike by major israeli military figures. you said more time planning a military, less on israel. i think the first is inaccurate. secondly, in terms of the change, i think people over interpret some of the language but i guess that is a grudging acceptance of the fact the current policies are okay or

acceptable. you have to criticize the fact they were not always his policies. i would have to go back to the advocate of mitt romney to attack anybody for changing positions or impugning that is a reach. >> let me pick up a question from a member of the audience. starting with bill, talk about your support for the emergency committee for israel, which has placed advertisements in newspapers. what do you hope to gain? >> i am sure most of view -- it is a small organization i am chairman of which we formed in mid 2009. when it seemed that the obama administration and parts of both political parties, the democratic party especially,

were not strong supporters of the u.s.-relationship with israel. we have done some legal interventions and political campaigns. we criticized some democrats in the house and the senate and some republicans, fewer, honestly, who had gone into j street criticizing netanyahu and less the palestinian authority for the impasse in the peace process and they spend a lot of time trying to prevent keeping the military on the table with respect to iran. i am pleased we have had a little bit of impact with the emergency committee. we may intervene in a couple of democratic primary races, where there is a strong pro-israel democrat in the house. i think you will see an emergency committee activity on behalf of democrats. we are not partisan but it is a

fact that the ron paul wing has been marginalized and the lot of us have fought hard for that. barney and others have fought to march on as the anti-israel wing. it is bigger. i think it is more of a problem for the left and i hope liberals marginalize those elements of their own party, as we have tried to do. >> the fact is you are talking about minuscule is bigger than microscopic. the the democratic party has been overwhelmingly and consistently supportive of a policy that respects israel's right to an independent, democratic to jewish state.

you are talking about 10, 20, 25 votes, a small minority. this notion that the republicans have marginalized and ron paul but the democratic anti-israel wing, here is the difference. do people take their differences with the policy of any israeli government, and conservatives have been critical, do you translate the that into actions that denied the support of foreign policy? the answer is that neither party wing that is critical of israel has been unwilling to support or had an impact on the policy process. when people take credit for the fact obama has been more pro- israel, we're talking about an elephant stick. people say what is there for?

to keep away the elephants. they say there are no elephants. he says because my stick works. i do not think obama -- even during the time when people were interpreting his speeches, from the beginning of this ministration, i have seen no actions taken by the obama administration or anything less than fully supportive of israel. >> let me ask another question. across the middle east, over the 16 months we have seen the collapse of regimes in libya and we continue to watch syria. has the obama administration been fast and wise enough in its response to the air about people? -- arabic people?

what would as a republican administration differently? >> there is a tendency for us to say everything that does not go right is our fault and responsibility. the arab spring has been a serious issue for us. the notion that a democracy is a good thing is something i believe in moral the but has not always created consequences of the right sort. what is happening in egypt is a troubling with people talking about cutting off the contract. one of the best thing was the willingness of both sides to live but to it. i think the administration has been dealing winnipeg recently, -- with it recently, including neither this administration or any republican administration has shown an eagerness to show the rulers of saudi arabia to join the press to democracy. -- push to democracy.

reality constraints. how do we reconcile our belief in democracy with concerns about the negative aspects of what happens? as a matter of democratic principle, it was a good thing because the palestinian authority had actions and that hamas won them. -- elections and that hamas won them. that is a dilemma i have not yet fully worked out when elections will bring about negative consequences. it calls for giving serious thought to what is involved. >> could the u.s. have steered the outcome of egypt in a different direction with a different administration? >> it is hard to say. i was for a more forward leaning policy. this is a tough choice. most of the foreign policy

communities on how to handle this, how much influence, i am part of the anti-saudi arabia wing. i will agree i am a minority. there are people that causes people to say it is a wonderful place. if we had more energy development, we would be less likely -- >> i think it is lawrence of arabia. >> i think the arabs during is -- arab spring is complicated. i have been on the hopeful side of those -- we are not going to prop up a bunch of dictators. i think the administration fell back a little bit. this is a failure of government bureaucracy, they could have done more on the ground in terms of economic development. to get serious economic development, this is a case

where the u.s. government has not adjusted to the realities as well as it should. one of these things i would criticize obama for, this is not partisan, they talk about soft power, smart power, bush used hard part. -- hard power. they have not reformed the u.s. government as much as they should have. it's money does not go to grass roots. public diplomacy has not been as improved as secretary clinton hoped. this should be an effort to adapt to some of the realities of the world we live in. the one place i would urge the obama administration to be more forward leaning is in syria.

that is a government that is an ally of iran and is a terrible government in terms of human rights and is a strategic enemy of hours. we should do more to stop the slaughter and tried to effectuate the toppling of the assad government. i would do like what we did in libya. a no fly zone. >> here is one of the criticisms of people who advocate that. there are people who do not think we're doing enough in syria, at some point, if you're going to expand the military reach, raise taxes to pay for it. [applause] i think there is a problem with my congressional colleagues who are all for doing more militarily -- the other thing

is, as far as aid in egypt, it is hard to do that. the point is this, non- partisan, not everything that goes wrong is the fault of the incumbent administration. we have been guilty of it ourselves. we have taken on the responsibility. you read the newspaper, there was this massacre. where is the government? in washington, trying to think about what to do. we should not be in a position where there is an expectation american resolve every problem everywhere. it becomes an unfair metric for any administration. i have seen it used against both. [applause] >> we have a question in the audience about iran. if sanctions against iran do not

work, how long should we wait before pursuing a military option? are there differences in the timetables that a second obama administration or romney administration would apply? >> this is one of those things you cannot predict. and you administration often does things people do not expect them to do, more hawkish or more dovish. i believe governor romney has spoken about the unacceptability of a nuclear iran. obama has moved to that view. they do not sound that different from each other. what is acceptable for israel as opposed to us? i believe that if military force will be used, it will be better for the u.s. this is our responsibility. you cannot do everything everywhere.

we should not blame the administration for everything that goes wrong on their watch but there are certain basic things we need to do around the world and one of them is to maintain some kind of a lid on nuclear proliferation. radical regimes getting their hands on nuclear weapons. iran would be a game changer in terms of a nuclear arms race in the middle east. it would be much harder to deter them. that is a huge issue. i trusted the wrong the administration to handle it and i hope president obama does the right thing if reelected. i hope he will do the right thing even during the campaign. >> except for the unjustified partisan the thing at the end,

there has been no difference between the administration's. the president has said we rule out containment. that means to take military action because that is the other option. as to when, there is no difference between the administration's. you are now talking about probably the most serious military undertaking since vietnam. in fact -- in terms of iran's ability elsewhere, what she will have to do with some careful planning, israelis, the saudis, others will have to worry about the iraqi government we helped install, we need to do serious planning.

either president would say, ok, we are at a point where we have to act. they are about to have a weapon. what can we do? that means planning for a military action in conjunction with the other nations. it becomes a complicated problem. any president would be working with his defense and intelligence establishments as to what to do. it is unfair for israel to be asked to take on this burden. one of the things we learn from the wikileaks cable, which was a terrible abuse, we learn how scared many of the arab states are of iran. this fear of iran and wishes someone would do something goes far beyond the israelis. it would be unfair to put the burden on them now. >> we have been encouraging

energy independence since the 1970's. it is better for our economy and for national security. is that a goal that is shared by president obama and governor romney? how can we best advanced toward that goal? >> full independence is not realistic. we have a very easy opportunity to build a pipeline near canada. a lot of labor unions are for it. independence is good, and the environment is good, but there is tension between them.

environmentalists are a very powerful force in the obama administration. one of the great thing that has happened is the national gas breakthrough. it is happening in north dakota and texas. the obama administration has come down on the side of the extreme environmentalist, against those who would like to develop more energy here. >> we tend to be more negative. we have been making progress. the dependence on foreign oil has dropped some. we have mexico, we have canada. we have others. there is more drilling going on.

the overall total of drilling has gone up. alternatives are a part of this. there is a notion that the fact we have to import from the middle east strains our foreign-policy. i have not seen evidence of that. one criticism i have of some of my colleagues who want to bomb iran, there is no question that it is american policy contemplating a military attack on the iran nuclear facilities, and americans have been tough on sanctions. the good news is that the fact that what we are doing with regard to iran has not deterred some political factor in america from going forward. we have over estimated that it

has been a constraint on foreign policy. >> it comes to a question of america's role in the world. over the last few years, we have seen the resurgence to turn attention homeward. what will america do to remain the world's greatest power? what would you say to people who believe fixing our own problems is our first priority? >> i believe we can reduce a worldwide military expenditure at no cost to our security.

there is an element of people are going to maintain the status quo. i would like to restrain it more. we have a notion that it is part of america's purpose, that america should not be a nation of shopkeepers. we have a moral responsibility to be the leaders of the world. we overestimate the ability we have to do that. i would be morally complected -- i do not think we should be trying to build in afghanistan or iraq a democratic society because you cannot do that with the military. you have this reliance on our allies on us.

there is a greater role to be played. libya was a good example. we knew to insist. we need to pay more attention to home. we need to reduce the deficit. to do so we have to curtail military spending, increase taxes, particularly on wealthy people, and cut domestically. the republicans say forget about any tax increases on wealthy people. spend more on the military. take it out of programs that enhance the quality of life here. that is an error. >> some of the countries we want to assume a greater role in defense responsibility are a

little strapped themselves. >> we are also strapped. i am not talking about poor countries. i am talking about germany, france, italy. they have a temporary problem. they pay less than half of their gdp. if you look at the programs they have -- medical programs and others -- there are people who are giving their citizens substantially greater social benefits than we give our citizens because we are paying the military budget. the self sufficient. >> one of the conditions for a strong america abroad -- the world would be immeasurably more dangerous to the degree of