a woman. [inaudible] what can you say, what i say to my friends that would commit them or even showcase that skevereds and republicans really are pro woman?>> well, it some young women who invited me. i was part of conservative coming out week. [laughter] it is scaryak, to come out as a republican as opposed to a gay. there are very welcoming with whatever is your sexual identity, but when it comes to your politics. they approached it as --

actually, the other students were pretty cool about it. they realized they were being intolerant. liberals do not like to be accused of being intolerant. they don't like to be accused of being intolerant. it is one way to tell them that they are practicing a kind of bigotry and closed at mindedness that they disapprove of. it is almost as if they dehumanize you if you're a conservative. they overlook the you are a human being with opinions. they have to be more open- minded. i would use that language. of the language of tolerance and inclusiveness. see how it works. it is tough out there. we think everybody here in the panel has probably experience, over the years, some kind of indication that you were on the

wrong side. you're trying to hold us back. you're not there for us. and then there you all feel it enormously. -- i know you feel if enormously. i have had any number of stories told to me about what you do experience when you take a pro- life position or a conservative position on a social issue. i learned something from my dad who was a coach of for years in every imaginable sport, but mostly basketball. he always said the best defense is a strong offense. i have taken that to heart and politics. as soon as you feel that you're in a defensive posture, then they are moving you. you are feeling intimidated or uncomfortable. that is outrageous. don't let people make you feel that way unless you are wrong about something. but we're talking about your

beliefs about those things you hold dear, though let anybody -- do not let anybody ever make you feel that way. the way to get around that, that i have a found, is go right to them. put it back on them. if it is pro-life, i mentioned earlier. how can you possibly do that? you're taking women's rights away. it is a constitutional right. i say, what about the life of your child? become very passionate about the child. or lookit the second victim. have you not talk to women or read about women that have had abortions? do you even know what you're doing? make them stop and be on the defense. you get an enormous amount of energy as you defend those things you believe. you will feel stronger. they may throw questions you that you don't know the answers. that is not a problem. we've all been there.

that is how we got the answers. talked to one another and got the answers. it is no difference than anything other than a sport. you practice, you practice. the moment you start feeling defensive and hesitant, you know that you're not ready for this battle. you better get ready. you need to stand taller, b boulder, speak louder. you can change lives. you can move people to make better decisions in their own lives. you can make a difference in your family, your community. if you speak out with confidence and clarity. if you do not speak, you cannot do any of the above. you'll be a follower. you can be quite and content to say, they are wrong, i am right. but you cannot make a difference. so, start now. speak. the moment i feel has attended

and uncomfortable, -- i feel hesitant and uncomfortable, no i am not ready. i know i had better keep working. i know i need to get more information. i will not have people make me feel like i should not say something i believe because i don't know the answer to their questions. i will find them. i will study it and i am coming back. i will keep coming back until nobody makes me feel this way again. then you can change of things. too many conservatives have been hesitant and quiet. if we had not been, we would not be in the mess we're in today. that is my position. we need u.s. leaders. we need you as leaders. there is no better leader than a conservative woman. did it in line. -- get in line. [applause] >> thank you, all.

i know there were other questions. you can find a panelist. i know they would be happy to talk to you. if you would like more information about the institute and would like to be -- bring a great woman speaker tear campus, give us a call or visit our web site. two quick things before you run off. these were on your chairs. please fill them out front and back before you go. hand them to a staff member. we're going to be doing a drawing next week for some best- selling conservative books. you only qualify if you fill them out. the second thing, we have our next big event coming up. on friday, july 27, we have our annual capitol hill seminar. we will have more speakers on the way. visit the web site and register for that.

thank you all very much. ho[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the supreme court struck down most of the arizona immigration long -- law. it upheld a provision that allows police officers to review the immigration status if they suspect a person is in the country illegally. the court struck down three other provisions, including one that would make a crime [unintelligible] and another allowing officers to

arrest someone without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe the person is an illegal immigrant. we have a couple of remarks from a statement today that president obama made. he said i am concerned about the practical impact of the arizona law requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone suspected of being here illegally. on sunday, the award winning author and historian is our guest. his passion for u.s. presidents and the great american pastime has resulted in a dozen books.

join us live with your calls, e- mails, and tweets sunday at noon eastern on c-span2. >> the atlantic council hosted a discussion on the e.u. structure. they participated in the 90 minute conversation. >> hello and welcome to the atlantic council. i run the relations program here.

i want to extend a welcome to those were your and those watching on c-span. this panel was organized with our global business and economic program. for the last two years it seems europe has been synonymous with economic crisis. within the eurozone, one country after another seems to go through either a banking crisis or a sovereign debt crisis and sometimes both. numerous forecasts that the eurozone will break up have been made as well as some that even the european union will end. now there is the specter of a 1930's tight economic crisis. -- type economic crisis. experts disagree about the future. we hosted josef ackerman, and he expressed confidence that europe will make it through

this concert -- crisis. the same week we hosted christine lagarde who was arguing for much more urgent approach saying that time is running out to avoid this becoming a much broader crisis. the zero governments have -- e.u. governments have responded to this crisis with a series of new fiscal policies and institutions. we have new rules on hedge funds and other forms of financial interactions that are believed to have caused some of this crisis. we have the so-called six pack of new measures designed to return discipline to european debt and deficit levels. we have the establishment of a european stability and financial facility. and the european stability mechanism to provide emergency funding rate we have enhanced

banking subversion including a new agency in london. the fiscal compact which reinforces the six-pack is now in the process of being ratified. we have to in your responses -- two new responses under discussion of. even greater banking supervision to the point perhaps of a banking union and the mutualization of debt. despite all this,the crisis persists. as one moves away, the other comes to the fore. is grace the next day of spain or italy or perhaps even france. the market seems unconvinced that europe will succeed. on one level, this is surprising. the eurozone has strong economic fundamentals. the deficit as a percentage of gdp is 2.8% as opposed to her

hours in the u.s. of 8.7%. the debt as a percentage of gdp is not far off. 87% vs. 70 or so. as callous observers have -- as countless observers have noticed, fiscal decision making in europe is still based at the national level. the healthy overall figures masked a very wide range from estonia where the debt of 6% and denmark, not in the eurozone but germany with a deficit of in % to 3% yanda 60% debt to ireland, greece, italy, portugal, was dead as a percentage of gdp over 100 in 2011. it with debt to gdp over 100 in 2011. as a result for two years now, the crisis has ebbed and flowed while dominating discussions within and about europe. it has dominated elections and government crisis -- crises.

and, france, portugal, the netherlands, and greece. that brings us to today. even if you have been following this crisis from the beginning, the last six weeks to a month has been harrowing and uncertain. we have a new french president who is arguing for a different tack. one that is less austerity and more growth. we have a bailout of spanish banks with growing concerns expressed about italy. moody's downgraded 15 banks, the some of which are european players. we have had to break elections so close together. -- we have had two elections so close together. the one this past week was a narrow victory. we now have a tentative coalition. they want to renegotiate their arrangements with the new but it -- renegotiate their

arrangements with the you read the e.u., but it has become clear that they have lost to will months in implementing reforms. we also face a series of eu meetings. ministers -- heard from book or the need to do more. -- heard from laguarde they need to do more. chancellor merkel of germany wants is meeting with others. we are hoping key decisions will be made. to discuss what the future may bring, we have an excellent panel and i will introduce them in reverse order of go. ambassador gray is one of the top u.s. regulatory lawyers. with the u.s. represented as -- was a u.s. representative and was an atlantic council board member. our next panelist is a senior

research fellow in berlin. chia's worked previously for other thing takes in germany and did she has worked previously for other german think tanks and is one of the most prolific commentators on the politics of a european integration. dr. jacob kirkegaard has written on workforce issues and pension reform in europe and elsewhere and for the last two years focused on economic reform. let me start with jacob and let me ask, where we now? how close are we to the edge of the cliff? is the european economy? >> let me start by quoting president obama in talking about this and the your area if you -- the euro area if you get the diagnosis of the crisis

right is doing just fine. what i mean by that is that there is no doubt the euro area faces a host of crisis. a banking crisis and we have a competitiveness crisis across the southern periphery and a fiscal crisis. the overall diagnosis of what the euro area is suffering from is an institutional crisis. it is a crisis of the design of the euro area itself which as it was created in the late 1990's is a flawed design. basically does not work when you have a major financial and economic crisis as we have right now. what that means is it is a political crisis that europe is facing. it is about the process in which national sovereignty and deep national sovereignty of the kind of national sovereignty over banking regulation and fiscal policy that governments were not willing to hand over to

european institutions in the 1990's are now in the process of being transferred through the narrow area. this is not a cooperative game. as economists, we can sit down and say, this is -- should not be very hard. we can aee what is the optimal approach. the basic reality is because we're dealing with handing over of national sovereignty which is the commodity that no government even in the euro area will always -- par with voluntarily, -- will ever part with voluntarily, you basically need the level of acute crisis that we're seeing right now for this process to happen. and this is important to our -- to understand the design of the euro area had led sovereignty over banking and fiscal issues

which are really the key policy levers in a financial crisis at the national level. the crisis response is fundamentally dictated by one single element which is that of political moral hazard. it is moral hazard that dictates that when you are, unlike here in the u.s. when you pass the time, because congress is --when you passed the tarp, because congress is sovereign, the european council is not sovereign. it cannot dictate the policies of recipient governments for such bailouts, which is another way of saying that they bailouts will always be partial. there will always be conditional, and those of you who believe that europe needs -- will ever put together a fully credible and enough firewall or

-- are wrong. that will not happen. because it did happen it would have-adverse effects for the incentives for the spanish and italian and parliaments to pass the reforms that are needed. or we are in the crisis right now is we have already had essentially or this moral hazard dictated process. relying on political brinkmanship which means that we take a crisis and you go very close to the edge of having a disaster and a disaster that everyone agrees is a disaster, which is of course the collapse of the euro. you go up to the edge to basically course the other players into giving you concessions but basically, a game their radical exercise, if -- theoretical exercise, if you

like. the main players here are the core garment's led by germany, -- the core government led by germany, the european central bank, and the peripheral governments and occasionally the rest of the world through the imf. we saw this in may 2010 with the first greek bailout. we saw in august last year when the -- the ec be squared off against the spanish and italian government. we saw in december last year and we're in the process of seeing it again right now. it is essentially a game. it is a repeated game of chicken that is being played out. their response function is very clear. germany and the c.b. will ever -- germany and the ecb will never pray publicly to say they stand fully behind the ural because if they did, they would be subject to moral hazard but

did not make any mistakes. there is plenty of political willingness to do what is necessary and in the case of the european central bank, there is also plenty of financial firepower. in the ecb. there is a firewall for those concerned about these issues. this is the european central bank. what i mean by a fire wall, consider that to date, the european central bank has bought 3% of actual assets as a share of euro area gdp in the form of security market purchases and the to cover bond market programs they had. what that means is if the ecb i and an acute situation had to buy one trillion lira worth of -- euros worth of spanish and italian debt, there would after that process only on 14% of euro area gdp in our right assets. that is less than what the federal reserve already owns. it is much less than what the

bank of england owns as a result of quantitative easing. you should ask yourself is it credible the ecb would not want to do this and have the your-- euro area collapsed? i absolutely believe that is not the case but again, this is a non-cooperative game that relies on the repeated game of chicken to course governments to handing over national sovereignty. it is a lot more stable than what is perceived -- and generally misperceived by financial markets. >> m. e. follow-up on this. -- let me follow up on this. you're arguing this is a bargaining game and one can see that. one also sees the market constantly raising the stakes. the market seems unconvinced there will be a resolution. we also hear from economists that the spanish bank bailout will add to spain's sovereign

debt and raise this to a dangerous level. that's because the bond -- and that spain's bond purchases now are being done at interest rates that are unsustainable. it does seem like there are serious economic positions that are being taken candia wretched -- positions being taken. can the e.u. wratchet up that up and meet those or is there a point where the evidence comes down because the economic fundamentals are not there? you mentioned the ecb serving as the firewall but their lives -- there are limits. not only politically given the german view but there are limits. it is sometimes said that if the europeans had gotten out in front of the market, this would not have cost as much.

it would have been over quickly. do you agree with that and are we coming to a point -- is their a point beyond which they cannot recover? >> if you had done this as a cooperative game and got a head of the market, it would have been much cheaper. no doubt about it. as i said, the reality is is not possible for governments to handle for the kind of -- hand over the kind of sovereignty that would entail. that is the problem. that is the process we're in. during believe -- in the case of spain, for instance. think about what is about to happen. first of all and this is an illustration of how the game works. spain for years denied that it had a serious banking problem because it had the sovereign ability to do so. as it became increasingly clear there were in a bind, a couple of months ago, they decided to

begin digging the european -- begin begging the european central bank to buy his bonds so that he could finance the debt himself. the ecb said no. finally the spanish government were essentially forced to accept a bailout including conditionality. and so it is an iterative bargaining game. what just happened today which is more interesting is the fact that we're getting to the point where the spanish government rather than accept to pay the full bank bailout is thinking about imposing losses on bond holders. which is very painful because many of these bondholders are

basically his supporters in spain. it is the choice between do you want to have more sovereign debt or impose losses on your political allies? this is a game that can go on. there are real at -- macro dig there is no doubt there are real macro economic costs to this but i take the view that it is not yet at the point of no return. i believe basically in the mainstream forecast for economic growth in the year area which suggests a recession this year and a turnaround in the second half of 2012, 2013. this, given the longer-term handover of sovereignty that are involved is, for lack of a better word, collateral damage that i am willing to pay for

this. i understand that -- an administration that has an election in november may feel differently. >> thank you. you have been a longtime observer of the french and german relationship and we have a new french government. they have had a couple of meetings with francois hollande and chancellor merkel. francois hollande came to office with a different approach to the eurozone crisis. the franc-german relationship in the past although difficult was nicolas sarkozy was key to what was happening in europe and the decisions the europeans made in this crisis. do you expect francois hollande and merkel to have the same relationship? will they work this out? what will this mean for the meetings will see today and

next week? >> thank you. i happen to be pretty optimistic because my argument is that the franco-german engine works best for europe if it disputes. we have seen -- it was very bad for europe. it was bad not only because they took various wrong decisions on private sector involvement which derailed the crisis but essentially when you have too big symbiosis, it did not give honor should to the smaller you do not give ownership to the smaller countries and the smaller countries need the struggle to fight and the deliberation process coming together to find the space and the place in the european compromise. this has been largely overlooked and -- what you would

hear from the dutch to the austrians to forever, there would be fed up because the moment you have too great some biases, it is not good. webre that fight would be, there jake -- whatever that fight would be, is a lot of struggle between banking union and political union between france and germany but the fact there is but the fact there is political struggle, i find this positive and i am confident there will be compromise and it is the best. be reminded by have these rosey ideas about franco-german engines. i was close to politics but it was just not fun. as i -- there was a book written in france, and the title was "the war of seven years,

how france and germany made the deerow happen." the more they fight, the better of the compromises that you have a compromise that works for europe. i am confident that we would see a compromise along the lines of this. we see a pretty interesting -- between france and germany. germany replies we can do more moves on banking union, we can do that step but please bill where -- be aware this requires huge steps into political union, into legal things. it requires political integration. the french need to get it. i happen to have been in the office in 1992 and 1994.

it was all there. the german argument about political union is a very old argument. if you want to read that, this document has it all. everything that is all -- is now out. have a different -- it was all said in the 1990's, the french did not accept. today i think there will lead to accept a little bit of this. >> what does this say, you're making the argument that there is a path to this relationship. >> yes. >> which clearly there is but what does it mean for the future? there have been a lot of predictions that the eu may bend failed. if it does survive, it will be smaller. it will be more of a core europe. do you believe that there is this the thing about -- among those who watch the eeo that out of crisis comes more europe, not less.

is this the exception? >> i think it is pretty true. if uc -- if you see what they came up with which was a big study group proposal, a document that was an interim report because he consulted with 10 light-minded foreign ministers. i was there. ships in the way a new democratic european system at last. it is a powerful vision in the european system with a different set up. a very different type of, to chambers, more europe and more political union. this is important. if we come back to france and germany what france and germany need to succeed now to be brief on this, the need to achieve a new social contract for your. this is what the unrest is about.

the social contract has two components. to refix the state relationship and to refix the capital relationship. if france and germany should succeed because they come from different socioeconomic traditions, it would empower the european union to have a pretty good consensus model where most of the countries can chime in. this is what they both knew. this is disputed. it is a chicken game but we see little progress on this. >> forgive me for challenging. we're in the midst of this economic crisis. a very uncooperative game was the term used -- you use. is this the moment to think about grant political the sign? one of the things i have been hearing as we will see a permanent division between north

and south. france seems to be somewhere in the middle. there will be a very different europe going forward in terms of splits and divisions. perhaps even the threat of some domestic extremism in some countries given the economic crisis. what i was in europe earlier and talking to some of my north european colleagues, they did not see much of a future for the south of europe with them, at least in the eurozone. is this the moment to think about this? >> dawan discussion is basically everyone is sanguine need to distinguish on the architecture. >> they say we need a new architecture. it reshuffling of the architecture. this is hard to explain. for the germans, this means a fundamental reset of the institutional system including treaty change.

this is a given. the other countries should come along excepting this. perhaps germany goes into the banking union. we may start with the redemption or whatever. i think this is the game. that means the erosion of national -- you need to rethink the democratic system of europe in a different way. that's a game changing moment. you go along with that thinking and you may think about that. this is one thing to understand. i think the other countries are coming there. for europe, i think there is no -- they have been talking about

this union. this is -- this would not fly. it is nonsense. europe is part of germany. france needs to decide whether they will go north or south. that has held true for 50 years. you do not see the big currency union. it is completely absurd. this is why the arm wrestling between france and germany. i feel like the french need to come along.

the germans came along first. the french did not give it to us. a further jump into the union. this is pretty much what is happening. i think the french are getting it. look at the system of the european union. the french work into government. tomorrow's discussion, executive is some verses parliamentarian some -- executivism. the need to come along and a different contract and under a political system that holds true for both. we will need to merger. the germans have -- she was nine times into parliament. nicolas sarkozy -- we need to

revamp the component of the european system of the french -- and the french will need to understand this. >> thank you. ambassador gray. a lot of high stakes, high wire act bargaining. is this the eu that you saw? does this sound familiar to you in terms of your experience in brussels? why is is important to us? why are we here in washington talking about this? president obama thinks this is important. what is your argument? >> we have two economies that

are highly integrated. 40% of the world trade, 60% of investment close, but 5% of the world gdp -- 35% of the world gdp. they are hugely integrated. up went to dinner and a walk in and it was some very nice. a belgian came up to me and said, i'm so glad to meet you. "where are you from?" i said i'm from once did, d.c. -- washington, d.c. he said, "nobody is from washington, d.c." i corrupt and did not know that the belgians own where we

bought our food. a lot of us do not know this. many of the bmw's that europeans drive are made in south carolina. there are too many regulatory disconnects. i think it should be one internal market. the european internal market is still not finished. we should not get very uppity about this. we have our problems, too. we should not be throwing rocks

at europe's so much because there are things we need to do that they can help us with. the two economies are intertwined. it is not much that our banks would fail or that exports would drop, which they have. it is the overall picture of investment confidence. the year prince -- this is led by the germans. they want a more focused look on regulatory harmonization or mutual harmonization, cloaking it in the guise of a free trade agreements. this is not progressing very well. even run the administration is saying it is not a good idea in campaigning.

why is it important? because if europe cannot find the key to the kind of dot.com innovation that we're used to -- facebook, google -- then we suffer. we're going to be at 2%, and nobody will be complaining if we were 3%. europe would not have a problem. you can trace almost the price of bonds in germany and italy depending on the progress of a free-market guy who was a competition in the commission. you can trace the progress in tandem with getting his reform

program through the italian parliament. what is the key of this? sort of a trick question. who was the sick man of europe when i first got there? germany. what did they do? they did the reforms. schroeder never benefited from it. this is not the first time president bush 41 cleaned up the banking system. president clinton had a great run. that is life. part of the reform was not adopted until january of 2005. within 18 months -- what angela merkel wanted from the rest of

europe -- we can do this deregulation. a little welfare reform. relaxing their rooms on hiring and firing. if we can do that, you can do that. the price of the bonds go up. interest goes up when it is up on the notion that he will eliminate the requirements without court approval. this is one of the more liberal judges. he said, you cannot do what in italy? you cannot fire anybody without court approval. "without my approval? that is insane."

it is insane. if you get sick on vacation in europe, you get to take a vacation over again. it used to beat if you get sick before vacation, you could postpone in. you can read it in today's paper. gee-whiz. what a great racket that is. i hope to get sick in august. what we need, i think, is to take a look at these things that made it germany a success. there is an effort afoot to try to do that. then i think europe will be under less pressure if they had more growth. >> thank you very much. someone said we european politicians know exactly needs

to do done. we just do not know how to get reelected after we do that. >> take care lumps. maybe in means you did not get reelected but you're treated well by history. >> we have furred a different view of the eurozone crisis, one that looks at this as a bargaining enterprise. one the requires crisis to work. we have a franco-german relationship that does better when they are having arguments. we have politicians who have commit political suicide in order to get these reforms through. no one in the current crop wants to do that.

it is not a very cooperative environment . it is not an environment where everybody can make a rational decision and move forward. we do have a great impetus of the economy, pushing people fourth, debt levels, deficit levels pushing decisions to be made. we have the meeting next friday which we hope will have some decisions. i will open this to the audience. i think we have some microphones here. so, yes. back -- yes, that's right. please say who you are and your affiliation. >> i'm chris with manufacturers' alliance for productivity and innovation. >> stand, please.

>> i hold them in high regard. i read their stuff and i value their writing. i will be challenging their views today. we have a game of chicken which is trying to subtract sovereignty, which is given to any group of countries. we have a conflicts that is almost needed to advance integration. we have a conflict that is needed in order to deepen integration that is supposed to avoid a conflict. i think the search for first best solutions that we have an

inability to concentrate on plan b and have the second-best as an option is causing this crisis. second-best is not being attempted or spelled out. the in-between area is causing the crisis. why do we have to have a crisis in order to solve the crisis? why don't we except plan b, spell out to the voters, and regain the credibility down the line? i cannot put it any other way. >> is there a plan date that would work -- is there a plan b that would work? europeans are accused of not finding the big solution. rather of muddling through. money into that for you -- let me answer that for you, jacob. there is a timing issue.

what would be better off having less of that time to distance to get to the goal and be able to have something, a win of some kind? there was a speech a month ago where europe was given three months. >> he also said last year about three months. >> two weeks last year. >> there are others as well who have said this. is there a second best? >> this is second-best in many ways. that is not possible because of the sovereignty issues involved. we are now in a second-best solution here.

with respect to the timing issue, the way i view it is perhaps slightly broader. remember the euro area is trying to get. a new center that has been created.

that is harder to do than the white continent are normals it unified which is through a military conquest historically. we have states versus the federal discussions about who does what, who pays for what, these types of issues. it goes on all the time. the same discussion about -- hear we caught states' rights issues -- here we cal it state's right issues. there is not a center that everybody believes will hold. i believe it will and that we have crossed the point of no return. it will be much more expensive for everybody involved to dissolve the european union

that goes to this process. will we need to do is to get -- what we need to do is to get to the point where the center will hold. to have these state right debates internally in europe. when will that happen? that is a very good question. we need a banking union. we clearly also need a partial debt neutralization of sovereign debt. i don't think that can be achieved maybe in a five- to eight-year time frane. that does not mean that in the meantime we cannot have a quieting down of the sovereign debt market, of the sovereign bond market instability. the way it works, the political function of the ecb, it lends its balance sheet. i would expect that to happen

after next week's summit. >> second-best plans? what does this look like between france and germany? to the other countries not part of the decision making process -- is it second best for them? the incentives for germany to compromise and particularly chancellor merkel. she has eight favorability rating of summer between 55% and 60%. >> i would agree. how long do we go with the half pregnant situation? angela merkel has issued a couple of speeches will take five years to go to the institutional set up. there is work to do.

trees will be conveyed into the treaty work -- treaties will be conveyed into the treaty work. something of a refundable work in the institutional set up. also with respect to how the european parliament functions and whether we can work on more transnational parties. we're at 15 years of -- 50 years of franco-german treaties. the symbolics of that. what is it for the smaller countries -- what is in for the smaller countries? i do not want to say they did not have other charges.

the smaller countries of the largest benefits of a strong european group. the benefit from the energy policy and from a strong set of support. the smaller countries, as long as they have ownership in the system, and that will be important. i do not like the discussions about federations' any longer. it is too much in comparing to the united states. we will need to have a moment. plenty of art values -- plenty of our values. there must be like something like creative thinking.

there is more for the smaller countries. >> do you want to comment on that? >> this sounds vaguely familiar. i used to say, taken from us -- take it from us. belgium, germany -- we are the old countries. this is not an unfamiliar think we're going through. many europeans are saying why germany should not pick up the debt. it happened when it was formed. there was a huge debt crisis. the states bet on canals and more overtaken by the railroads. "will you bail us out?" washington said no.

we have seen this movie before. we used to say brussels needs to get stronger before it can be weaker. it needs more of a democratic element. the president has to be publicly elected. there has to be this element of it. the french are going to resist this. i have to be careful how say this. my experience was that the french really knew how to run

the european union. i used to say to buy british friends who dominated the staff, and the brits being so good at this. "you really do dominate, don't you?" "no, no, no. it's the french. the french dominate everything." this is the problem. the french do not want their power diluted by eastern europe, let alone the united states, if we were to be more integrated in terms of our relationship. i think the french do have to come along on this. >> very quickly on this issue of

the pulling of the sovereignty. it is important to distinguish between the timetable for the fiscal union and for the banking union. you can pull solvency like the european central bank. you cannot do that with a fiscal policy. the need to create a new political institution, which will take the time frame that we talked about. i don't believe the banking union is that far away. >> next week? >> i think we'll have an announcement next week. the pulling of not debt but contingent liability. >> a question here.

can i get a microphone here? >> i'm with the atlantic council. i want to congratulate the panel. i wanted to enlarge the discussion about a headline i remember reading in london the read channel fogged in, continent cutoff. what is happening in syria and iran? you can imagine will happen to the stock market when the supreme court rules on the health care bill. i wondered if the panel might address some of those and how they might be dealt with if that all. >> at first i thought you're going to ask ask-- something much broader than that. we've had eight bad with issue

-- we have had a bandwidth issue. it has been phenomenal. why don't you start? >> there is an easy answer. we're trying to shift the system away if and we're doing this for all the reasons that jacob mentioned. if you shift the system without gaining ground, the risk is always there that you can lose it. i am convinced that markets already have the story that will succeed a go forward. your point is a valid point. the unknown risk. we do not know about the

unknown risk. the law of unintended consequences. we have been seeing this in these movements and it led to other consequences which were unintended but progress other difficulties. i think we need to have that in buying. -- i think we need to have that in mind. there is a problem. if all this goes right, we'll be keeping a whole political system under strain for the next five years to come. the strain on political elections and the narrative right and the press but overshooting and whenever, what is poisoning the atmosphere and the poison the electoral things and this is a risk. i agree.

>> all of this talk about the look at u.s. they are thinking about it is the up most important partner on earth for the united states. this was the most unintended consequences of the european crisis. >> i am a broken record on this. . joffrey had a great

piece. it starts with economics. my old man used to save money is not everything. it starts with economics. it starts with the internal market. it has to be trans atlantic. if you do not have the economic growth, you cannot bear everything else. you cannot do the things that we are talking about here. uni the economic growth. that is where liberty come from brigitte you need the economic growth. that is where real liberty -- you need the economic growth. that is where economic growth. the head of the business europe and a leading german finance

figures said if we do not get our act together without common values, asia will drive right through us. the whole game will be lost. what happens between us and europe is critically important and for the future of the world's economic world. if we do not get our act together, we will hang separately. >> thank you. let me bring in another voice. >> high. i am with the transatlantic business dialogue. will the role of the u.k. play in all this? we naturally think of the uk.

most of our exports go there and we have a close relationship with them. i'm interested in the panel's thoughts about the troubled u.k. may cause in all of this. >> jacob, do you want to start on economics? >> yes, i think this is first and foremost a problem for the u.k., quite frankly, because i think that what you will see is increasingly -- i know there is talk of [unintelligible] , but in the long run, because of the benefits for the smaller countries that are part of the european integration, i think in the long run it will end up being 26. i feel very confident about that. if you think about why that is, poland is a member of the group that she mentioned in the

beginning. this is not and eu 15. it is a group with everybody in. who knows what the czech republic will do. then we are into a situation of 26. in the long run, unfortunately, the politics of the u.k. is no more certain to keep it out of these deep sovereignty issues. the role of the city of london in this is a good question. i guess at the end of the day, as came out a couple weeks ago in open europe they had a report on what the u.k. should do in this and these are people who are skeptics and they said

at the end of the day the u.k. has more to gain from being inside and outside. i think they will remain a member of the european union. whether or not it will be a special relationship than a full member, that is up to debate. but they will not be part of the core of it in the long run. >> the camera on government has been quite concerned about their ability to have influence over regulations on financial services. -- the cameron government. it is a single market, the u.k. do you think they will be able to protect their interests in financial regulation?

>> if they do, it is for the narrow party political reasons that david cameron chose to stay outside. i think it was a very stupid thing that he did, because he basically chose to have a couple good headlines in the daily mail and the other tabloids rather than think about the decisions about financial services in the internal market already taken by qualified majority. it means the actual needs allies in the european union already. by staying out of it is not a way to get a lot of friends. so in a huge mistake for short- term gains. will they ultimately succeed? i think they will. i think there will be allies for the traditional open market model that the u.k. is associated with, free trade,

etc. also because the u.k. is not associated with a light touch financial regulation. so i think there's room. >> go ahead. then we will go back to the audience after your comments. >> what is the principal dispute between london and brussels over financial regulation? anybody? >> financial transaction taxes? >> no. >> they don't like that. that's true. like't think we should that either. i think i know what it is. we had joseph ackerman to address this. he is the expert. we probably all think the issue

is the british want to have less regulation than brussels. that would be wrong. what they want is high capital standards for british banks, which the europeans do not want. they want those banks to do more lending in europe, which the british taxpayers will pick up the tab if something went wrong. so there's a tug of war. . it is counterintuitive. nobody in america knows this because the press does not report it. england wants tighter regulations. high capital standards mean that you don't have to do any other regulation. like we have over here, the continent does not want to do that. i'm going into this because the regulatory details really matter and they are really

boring. >> thank you for that. >> i want to drop a little vinegar into the wind. -- wine. if we need a moment of an institutional game change in which we changed the institutional nature of the system in a way that we probably cannot go with unanimity -- somebody told me rhode island did not do that and dropped out. we have learned not to do the institutional game change as we're waiting for a danish yes or no or an irish yes or no. a game change cannot come with british conditions. we gave them a first chance in december when we said we would not always wait for you guys.

that's not to say we don't want the uk on board. it's very important country and the city of london. my argument would rather be the german government should be more decided to go eu 17 at the detriment of 27 with the hopes that others would come along. the u.k. can do it if it wants to. >> i saw a question over here. let's get a microphone. >> thank you. scott harris, atlantic council. recently i was running the european office of lockheed martin the last 10 years. we had several interesting adventures together, with ambassador gregg. i want to thank the panel for an interesting discussion.

-- ambassador gray. i have a concern. always when we have these institutional discussions about mutualization and building deeper and treated changes, we assume that the governments of europe can do what they say they will do. i am concerned that especially 3 southern european governments will be forced to and will sign up to things they actually cannot implement. ken the brakes really reform the state sector and collect taxes? can italians reform the labor market and deal with corruption? can the spanish get the regional governments not to run deficits? there are political problems that are very deep and cannot be solved by dictation. do you share that concern? >> i think in many european discussions this has come down to are the germans pushing everyone to become germany? and whether some of the long- term institutional factors in many of these other countries can change.

what do you think? how much room for diversity will there be in this post-physical contact? >> i am with you that the inertia on the ground is enormous. if you look closely at germany, we also are now having people waking up. berlin is as indebted as the greeks. there's a huge inertia at work. the same in spain and italy but. i give you something else, which is my biggest problem, how do we make all this work, and transnational democracy? if you want to take crucial decisions on how do you send your money, it's not so easy. this is why we are filling up the press instead of who should pay for the crisis.

[unintelligible] you see french camp socialists coming together with greek workers -- french socialists. if you look at elections and populism in europe, we have a 77% -- 30-70 divide. you have an average populism, leighton populism of 30% in the netherlands or france like left and right pulled together. that is most often a regional pressure and goes against the

more europe argument in the constraint. for the rest, there's more of an economic argument, which is how much diversity we can allow in the economy. i hope we can have this discussion. if we win this discussion, we have won the future. it's not about whether germany is rich. germany is very poor. 50% unemployed regions. there is a solidarity concept. todon't compared trade export figures. if we could mentally and intellectually shift to the european system as an aggregate

economy and then do fiscal transfer from wealthier regions to less wealthy regions rather than doing german money to fiscal transfers, then we would have done the intellectual and mental game change. i think we are preparing the ground that much more about wealthy regions to poorer regions. we will need to accept poorer and richer regions in the european union. everybody can be different while we are still denied said. that's the work we will need to achieve and its big work. >> did you want to -- >> yes, my daughter said that if you did not catch a greek citizen before noon, you could

not read to them in the afternoon, the bureaucrats. she never had any trouble reaching anyone in germany. let me read a couple figures from the article. >> germany's unit labor cost taking into it -- not taking into account east germany was 7%. it'll it was 30% and in spanish with 35%. 42% increase, the unit labor cost -- 42% in greece. that is almost with the problem begins and ends. cosumnes diversity can we get under the compact? >> eventually you will get there, but i think there's a very important distinction i

would make. whatever the unions look like will be very different from that of the united states. the euro zone in almost any conceivable shape or form that i can conceive of will not have a sizeable federal budget like in the united states. the reason is simple. it has to do with people's self identity. because europeans continuously self-identified as french, german, belgian -- or maybe not belgians, actually. [laughter] but the point is you will only accept being taxed at a level in which yourselfidentif -- you self identify. the willingness of americans to pay federal income tax is much higher than the willingness of europeans to pay taxes. the public sectors in europe are larger than in the u.s.

the overwhelming amount of public spending will remain at the state level, much more so than in the united states where the predominant taxing power is the federal government and then spending directly in the benefits system or giving in grants to the states. that system in europe will be different. the money will be raised and spent at the member state level.

you will have some sort of -- that's why there's a focus on fiscal rules, how you spend the money that you raised at the member state level. fore's quite a lot of room diversity within this system, because it is necessary, because there's no possibility of a large 10% or 20% of gdp federal budget. >> i will ask for a brief questions because we're coming to the end and we have several questions still out there. this gentleman in the front. and the next is in the back. >> . ben from the economic strategy institute. thanks very much for an

interesting discussion. i think there's a very compelling description of this being sort of a high-stakes game of chicken over and over again in the european union. given the stakes of the sovereign issues involved with the banking units and fiscal units, it's not hard to understand. given the time frame people are talking about in terms of setting up a banking union and a fiscal union, how credible is it that the ec began keep the pressure on? -- the ecb. it's trying not to be the lender of last resort. imagine a scenario where french sovereign bond yields start to rise because some market gets a little worried, it's hard to conceive the french would accept that and they would not say, listen, you've got to do something at the ecb? can the board members maintain the pressure?

>> and how much longer can analysts like ourselves continually wonder if this is the week that the crisis will be? >> i believe the actual firepower of the european central bank is a lot higher than is generally perceived by the market's. with respect to what they would do in the case of a spike in french bond yields, i think it would -- then we would go back to the issue of conditionality. you would have a situation -- recall what happened in august last year when the issue was whether or not john club treats shade and dragi would purchase -- -- whether trichet and dragi would buy italian debt? the same thing happened in france. they would be met with some degree of implicit

conditionality in terms of whether it's labor markets o whatever in terms f -- in return for those purchases. more importantly, and this also goes to the market psychology, what you need to have is the market circumstances in which a convergence trade is once again feasible. what that entails is -- because when you have that, markets all of a sudden will buy because they think they will converge. there's a need to convince the markets that the center will fall. because once that happens the markets will actually help you

in the way that they helped the european integration much too much in the early years of the economic and monetary union where there was excessive convergence, because it basically led to complacency of the policy level. the point is you have to read this sort of threshold and then the divergence will become convergence. ecb is perfectly capable of that. >> let me go to the back of the room and then we will get another question here. the last question. >> i am randy at american university and the peterson institute. i want to thank the four of you for an interesting session this morning.

and follow up on ulrike guerot's point about the transformation of european politics as we move forward from here, which i thought it was intriguing. in particular, i want to ask you a little about transeuropean political movements. these will be an important complement to the kind of institutional transformation that you discussed. i would like to ask you, because i think that you could look more closely at this than most of us have, i would like to ask you about the cooperation between the french socialist party and the german s3d. i had thought the challenge for them has been to come to agreement on what to ask as the quid pro quo for moving forward with the fiscal, and the stability treating? it does not seem to me they have come to much of an agreement on this.

i have been disappointed it has gravitated to the financial transaction tax, which does not help moves fiscal union and banking union's ford. -- forward. i will ask about the basic -- fundamentals, the corporation between these two parties and some of the negotiation between them over the last week's. >> ok. let me get a microphone over here, quickly. >> peter, u.s. chamber. i want to ask whether the panelists believe the market's should inflict their concern about the distance that these countries can go on with reform. even some of the core countries like germany and austria, the service sector is very sticky. maybe there's a limit. if that's the case and markets are asking themselves the same question, does that not argue for something very big pretty quickly along the lines of our redemption fund, which did work very well to get from the

articles of confederation to the constitution? >> final question in the front. >> the european union delegation to the u.s.. take a, you have represented the situation as non cooperative. the main variable is the transfer of sovereignty. i wonder whether this should be a positive sum game. in the and the european union is based on a positive son -- positive sum game and cooperation. [unintelligible] we have also perceived it as non cooperative. this is based on some misperceptions.

small countries benefit more than large countries is a misperception. germany pace more than its fair share. misperception. the idea that germany pays and the others don't, germany does pay its fair share, but the others do as well. unit labor costs have been diverging and cannot converge again. the last three years have shown that they have converged again. clearly, the perception is related to the democratic process. would you not agree that leaders realize the nature of the cooperative gain and in the end can find a solution? >> do you want to finish? >> i would like to share that. i don't think there's any doubt that unit to gain is a plus sum game. when i talk about an uncooperative game, that is a theoretical idea that you basically have to have a game

of chicken for it to unfold. that is more a process element. i certainly agree. i agree with what you said that these diverging labor costs and unit labor costs that we referred to earlier, there are rapidly converging. we should also be careful not to have much of a unit labor cost, because they don't represent actual export performance in many of these countries, so they're not the ". -- not equal.

i will stop there. qwikster you want to comment than-european? political european >> i'm from the area of cologne, germany, which has a beautiful cathedral and i think the european union is threatened by it. -- it was under construction for over 600 years and it is very beautiful, and in a way the european union is like this. it will never be finished. when it is finished, they will start at another angle to do construction. this is to be understood. the crisis is over, in a way. there is now a political construction work, economic construction work. the question of when it will be over is no longer a question. the german government is committed to do at each step of the crisis the necessary to prevent a collapse. i think markets have understood

that. it might be that in a week's time it is a banking union and then the germans will do it. if it is three weeks later, it is the redemption fund. that is how i see it. we are already in the big architecture thing here. to be more precise, i think there is another misunderstanding here which is that german spd is much more german than it is socialist. i wrote a paper with my colleagues which i called the long shadow of [unintelligible] i tried to match the thinking of german parties to mainstream international thinking. what you can see with this paper is that even if you go into the

deep parts of german social democrats, they would still be for the ec be. they would still think that civility is in. of course, the spd was in a way squeezed in recent weeks because it wanted to show that solidarity was no longer. it wanted to renegotiate some elements of the fiscal compact to lead to a majority. she needed the votes and they wanted to do a favor and renegotiate at some point which actually did not happen. it makes you understand -- and that is also what i want to give you. we have elections next year. what will change? not much.

even with a left coalition, which i do not think is likely, you will not seek game changes in the german mind set of how this crisis is to be solved and you will be hearing the same messages of stability, structural reform, and no debt growth. here is the thing. the moment, they have been talking closely. this is what europe is about tomorrow, more cooperation. >> final word. >> europeans should not invoke the redemption fund.

chief justice marshall relentlessly squashed member states for interfering with the market. there is a member quid pro quo. there was, and if europe wants to invoke that model they should also accept the internal market deal. >> i want to thank the panel. i think jacob started out by pointing out that the european crisis is a political animal and a political disagreement. i think the range of topics we have talked about from the future political construction of europe to the political building ofhe united states just demonstrates how accurate that was. i hope that you all have found the view of the eurozone prices as a bargaining enterprise -- crisis as a bargaining enterprise, if i can put it that way, to be helpful in

understanding what is happening in europe. this evening, we will have the ultimate uncooperative game in europe, the germany-all -- germany-priests football match which begins in a couple of hours. -- germany-greece football match. we will all be watching that as a metaphor of things to come. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> wended clean energy become a dirty word? what is wrong with clean energy? whatcan believe what you win about our existing energy sources, but why would you not also believe there is an opportunity for clean energy? >> i think we need to create demand for renewals to offset the advantages the powerful fuels' have had -- fossil fuels have had, and i think on a state-by-state basis it would be much more effective if it was a federal policy. >> roughly two times as much energy is consumed in mobility as it is in heating our homes. north america is the only continent where we do not have

widespread vehicles coming off the assembly line that can use compressed natural gas. there are still a ton of people out there who believe that compressed natural cars and trucks are more likely to burst into flames during a crash. >> developing alternative energy sources, including wind and biofuel, were all part of an energy forum hosted by atlantic magazine. watch their conversations on line at the c-span video library. in a 5-3 decision today, the supreme court struck down most of arizona's immigration law, but upheld a provision requiring police to conduct immigration checks on individuals they stopped for questioning if they suspect they are in the country illegally. here is what some of arizona governor jim brewer said after the high court's decision. >> did not ask the best fight it seek out the task of having to confront illegal

immigration. we cannot forget that we are here today because the federal government has failed the people regarding immigration policy. so today is a day when the key components of our efforts to protect the citizens of arizona, to take up the fight against immigration and in a balanced and constitutional way, has unanimously been vindicated highest court in the land. the heart of senate bill 1070 has been proven to be constitutional. >> attorney general eric holder also reacted to the supreme court's decision upholding the part of the law that requires police officers to review a person's immigration status if they suspect the person is in an the country illegally. he said this is not a license to engage in racial profiling and

>> we welcome you to the governor's mansion. >> here we have a photograph of governor brown and his wife and child. what is interesting is the fact that his granddaughter, margaret wise brown, wrote the book good night man which is a favorite of many school children not only here in missouri but all over the united states. >> the tv and american history to be explored the heritage and literary culture of missouri's state capital, jefferson city with c-span local content vehicle and american history tv inside the governor's mansion. >> governor stewart was a bachelor governor. history says he rode his front

-- rode his horse up the front steps, into the dining room and proceeded to feed his horse from the sideboard. the comment was he should probably not be feeding his worse in the governor's mansion. his comment was i have had to feed more people in this home with less manners than my horse has. >> president obama said today that giving me -- that mitt romney was a commitment -- not commitment toney has a outsourcing. this came at a campaign event at oyster river high school. this is about 40 minutes. >> hello, new hampshire!

[applause] hello, durham! [applause] thank you. thank you so much. thank you, everybody. it is great to be back in new hampshire. [applause] a couple of people i want to acknowledge. first of all, wasn't scott outstanding? give scotty a big round of applause foris introduction. [applause] i want to thank todd allen, who is the principal here at oyster river high school. [applause]

and i want to thank our outstanding senator from new hampshire, jeanne shaheen. [applause] and i want to thank all of you. [applause] i know it's a little warm in here. [laughter] that's okay. that's okay. it is wonderful to be back. and i just have so many good memories here in new hampshire, and i see some familiar faces and folks who were with me when people were still figuring out how to pronounce my name. [laughter.] >> we love you! >> i love you guys back. i really do. [applause] now, i am back here in new hampshire not just because i need your help -- although i do. but more importantly, i'm here because your country needs your help. in 2008, we came together

to reclaim the basic bargain that built this country -- the basic ideal of this country, the thing that created the largest middle class, the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. we came together because we believe that in america, your success shouldn't be determined by the circumstances of your birth. [applause] here in the united states of america, if you are willing to work hard, you should be able to find a good job. if you're willing to meet your responsibilities, you should be able to take care of your family, and own a home, maybe start a business, give your kids a better chance than you had - no matter who you are, no matter where you come from, no matter what you look like, no

matter who you love. [applause] that's what we believe. that's what america is about. [applause] that's why we came together. that's why so many of you got involved in 2008. it wasn't because you thought my election was a sure thing -- when you support a guy named barack obama -- [laughter] -- you know that's not a guarantee. but we shared that common sense of what america has been, and is, and must be for the future. [applause] i ran for this office because for more than a decade, that basic bargain, that profound american dream had been slipping away from too many people. before i took office, the worst economic crisis of our lifetime made it even worse. so, durham, the debate in this election is not whether we need to do better -- everybody understands

that our economy isn't where it needs to be. there are too many people out there who are struggling, too many folks out of work, too many homes that are still underwater. of course, we need to do better. the debate is not whether; it is how. [applause] how do we grow the economy faster? how do we create more jobs? how do we pay down our debt? how do we reclaim that central american promise that no matter who you are, you can make it here if you try? and this is not just the usual run-of-the-mill political argument. this is not the usual washington chatter -- there's a lot of that. but this, this is the defining issue of our time. this is a make-or-break moment

for our middle class, and folks who are aspiring to get into the middle class. the next president and the next congress will face a set of decisions -- on the economy, on deficits, on taxes - that will have a profound impact not only on the country we live in today, but the country that we pass on to our kids. and here's why you're so important -- because what's holding us back from meeting the challenges we face is not the lack of big ideas, it's not the lack of technical solutions. just about every policy and proposal, by now, has been put on the table; everybody knows what the options are. what's holding us back is a stalemate in washington between two fundamentally different visions of which direction we should go. [applause.] and, new hampshire, this

election is your chance to break the stalemate. this election is your chance to move this country forward instead of seeing it go backwards. that's why i'm here. that's why i need your help. [applause.] >> four more years! four more years! four more years! >> governor romney and his allies in congress, they believe -- they have a certain idea about how they would proceed if they're in power. they think that we should go back to the top-down economic policies of the last decade. >> no! >> they believe that if we

eliminate regulations and we cut taxes by trillions of dollars, that the market will solve all of our problems on its own. they argue that if we help corporations and wealthy investors maximize their profits by whatever means necessary -- whether it's through layoffs or outsourcing or whatever steps it takes to maximize those profits -- that that automatically translates into jobs and prosperity for you. >> booo -- >> now, just last week, it was reported that governor romney's old firm owned companies that were "pioneers" in the business of outsourcing american jobs to places like china and india. now -- >> booo -- >> so yesterday, his advisors were asked about this and they

tried to clear this up by telling us there's actually a difference between "outsourcing" and "off-shoring"" [laughter] that's what they said. you cannot make this stuff up. [laughter.] now, what governor romney and his advisors don't seem to understand is this: if you're a worker whose job went overseas, you don't need somebody trying to explain to you the difference between outsourcing and offshoring. you need somebody who's going to wake up every single day and fight for american jobs and investment here in the united states. [applause] that's what you need. that's why i'm running. [applause] unlike governor romney, i want to close the outsourcing

loophole in our tax code. i want to give tax breaks to companies who create jobs and manufacturing here in new hampshire, here in the united states of america. [applause.] but what's important to understand is governor romney's commitment to outsourcing is not just part of his record, it's part of an overall economic vision that he and republicans in congress want to implement if they win this election. >> hell, no! [laughter and applause.] >> and, look, their plan is pretty simple. it's been voted on in congress. it's right there on governor romney's website. first of all, they promise to roll back all kinds of regulation on banks and polluters and insurance companies and oil companies. >> booo -- >> so that's step number one. and then, second, they promise not only to keep all of the bush tax cuts in place -- not just the ones for the middle class, but for everybody, for the wealthiest americans -- but they also then want to add

another $5 trillion in tax cuts on top of that, including a 25% tax cut for every millionaire in the country. >> booo -- >> now, you may be wondering -- because i can tell -- [laughter] -- you're scratching your head here -- you may be wondering how do they spend $5 trillion on new tax cuts and still keep a straight face when they say that their plan would reduce our deficit? this is a good question. [laughter] well, they say that they'll start by proposing $1 trillion in cuts to things like education and training -- audience: no! the president: -- and medical research and clean energy. but that's only $1 trillion. they've got $5 trillion that they want to pay for, right? so that's not enough.

so they also propose eliminating health care for about 50 million americans and turning medicare into a voucher program. >> booo -- >> but that's still not enough. still haven't gotten to the $5 trillion yet. so then they'll also have to raise taxes on the middle class by taking away tax benefits for everything from health care to college to retirement to home ownership, and this could cost some families thousands of dollars. so think about this. to pay for another $250,000 tax cut for the average millionaire, they're going to ask you to foot the bill. >> we can't afford it! >> i figure you can't afford it. [laughter and applause.] is there anybody here who can afford to pay thousands of dollars to give folks like mr. romney or me another tax cut? >> no! >> unfortunately, that is their entire economic plan. that's it.

when mr. romney tells us he's some sort of financial wizard who can fix our economy, that's exactly how he intends to do it. now, there may be some people -- in fact, i know there are some people -- who think this kind of plan is a good idea. they want to give the policies of the last decade another try. and if they do, they should vote for mr. romney. they should reelect the republicans who've been running congress. together, they will take america back down this path that we tried. i believe they're wrong. i believe their policies were tested, and they failed. [applause] and that -- my belief is not just based on some knee-jerk partisan reaction. it's based on the fact that we tried it. and you look at our economic history.

in this country, prosperity has never come from the top down. [applause] we don't need more top-down economics. [applause] what we need is a better plan for education and training -- [applause] -- and energy what we need is a tax code that encourages companies to create jobs and manufacturing here in the united states -- [applause] -- and that asks the wealthiest americans to pay a little bit more to help pay down our deficit. [applause] listen, we don't expect government to solve all our problems, and it shouldn't try to solve all our problems. i learned from my mom no education policy can take the place of a parent's love and attention -- and sometimes scolding.

[laughter] as a young man, i worked with a group of catholic churches who taught me that no poverty program can make as much of a difference as the kindness and commitment and involvement of caring neighbors and friends and fellow parishioners. [applause] over the last three years, i cut taxes for the typical working family by $3,600. [applause] i cut taxes for small businesses 18 times. [applause] i don't believe every regulation is smart, or that every tax dollar is spent wisely. i don't believe we should be in the business of helping people who refuse to help themselves. [applause] but let me tell you what i do believe. i share the belief of our first republican president, abraham lincoln, that through

government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. [applause.] and that's how we built this country - together. we built railroads and highways, and the hoover dam and the golden gate bridge. we did that together. we did big things together. we sent my grandfather's generation to college on the gi bill. we did that together. [applause] we invented amazing scientific technologies and medical breakthroughs because we invested in basic research and science. we did those things together. we didn't do those things for any particular individual, any particular group, but we understood that by making these common investments, everybody

would have the platform, everybody would have the capacity to do better. it would make us all richer -- together. it gave all of us opportunity -- together. [applause] we moved forward together, as one nation and as one people. and that is the right lesson for our future. that's why i'm running for a second term as president of the united states -- because i want us all to move forward together. [applause.]

>> four more years! four more years! four more years! >> i'm running to make sure that every american has a chance to get the skills and training that today's jobs require. my plan would recruit an army of new teachers, pay those teachers better. [applause] i want to hire more teachers in areas like math and science. i want to give 2 million more americans the chance to go to community colleges and learn the skills that local businesses are looking for right now. [applause] and i want to make higher education affordable for every american who's willing to work for it - not just by offering more loans and financial aid, but by holding down the costs of a college tuition. [applause.]

a college education can't be a luxury. it's a vital necessity for everybody. it may not be a four-year college; it may be a two-year college, it may be a technical school. but everybody is going to need the skills they need to compete. and that's the choice in this election. that's why i'm running for president. [applause.] now, i'm running so that we have a future where we control our own energy, and that's good for our economy, our security. it's good for our environment. [applause] so my plan would end government subsidies to oil companies that

are making plenty of profits. let's double down on clean energy -- [applause] -- wind power and solar power, next generation of biofuels, fuel- efficient cars. that's the choice in this election. i'm running to make sure that the united states of america is the best place on earth for innovation and discovery, which is why my plan would give companies a permanent tax credit for research and development that they do here in america, and we double down on the public research that's helped lay the foundation for the internet and gps and google, and the countless companies and jobs that follow. i'm running so that after a decade of war, we can start doing some nation-building here at home. [applause] so we've ended the war in iraq. we are transitioning in afghanistan.

my plan would take half the money we're no longer spending on war, use it to put people back to work rebuilding our roads and our runways and our ports and our wireless networks. [applause] that's the choice in this election. i'm running so that we can reduce our deficit in a responsible way, by $4 trillion, doing it in a balanced, responsible way -- >> the way it was done before. >> the way it was done before. [applause] i put forward a detailed plan. it will cut spending we can't afford. and there's some programs that don't work -- we can eliminate that money -- strengthen programs like medicare for the long haul, reform our tax code so that the wealthiest americans pay a little bit more, just like they did when bill clinton was president -- [applause] -- just like they did when our economy created 23 million new jobs. [applause.]

i mean, think about it, we created 23 million new jobs, the biggest budget surplus in history -- and, by the way, we produced a lot of millionaires, too. there's no contradiction here. and there are plenty of patriotic, successful americans, a lot of business leaders, a lot of folks who'd be willing to make this contribution again if they were asked to help pay down the deficit and they saw it as part of a responsible, balanced plan. this is about choices. i don't believe that giving millionaires and billionaires a $250,000 tax cut is going to do more for our future than hiring transformative teachers, or providing financial aid to the children of middle-class families. [applause] i don't believe a poorly designed tax cut like that is more likely to create jobs than providing loans to new entrepreneurs, or tax credits to small businesses who hire veterans.

i don't think it's more likely to spur economic growth than investments in clean energy and medical research, and new roads and bridges and runways. >> eldercare. >> or eldercare. so governor romney, he fundamentally disagrees with my vision. that's what elections are about. his allies in congress disagree with my vision. neither of them will endorse any policy that asks the wealthiest americans to pay even a nickel more in taxes. >> booo-- >> that's the reason we haven't reached an agreement on our deficit. it's the reason my jobs bill that would put more than 1 million people back to work has been voted down by republicans in the congress again and again and again. it's been the biggest source of gridlock in washington for the last three years. and, new hampshire, the only thing that can break this stalemate is you.

[applause] is you. in this election, on every single challenge that we face, you've got the final say. that's the amazing thing about our democracy. you can decide whether we keep our brave men and women in afghanistan indefinitely, like mr. romney wants to do, or whether we stick to the timeline that i've set to finally bring our troops home. that's up to you. [applause] you can decide that instead of restricting access to birth control or defunding planned parenthood, we should make sure that in this country, women control their own health care choices. that's up to you. [applause]

you can decide whether we keep wall street reform; whether ending taxpayer bailouts for wall street banks was the right thing to do; whether preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people who are sick is the right thing to do; whether over 3 million young people being able to stay on their parent's health insurance plan is the right thing to do. [applause] you can decide whether or not we go back to the days when you could be kicked out of the united states military just because of who you are and who

you love. [applause] you can decide whether or not it's time to stop denying citizenship to responsible young people just because they're the children of undocumented workers -- [applause] -- who have been growing up with our kids and want to contribute to this country. it's going to be up to you whether we continue seeing these elections where multimillion-dollar donations, one person writing a $10 million check -- whether that speaks louder than the voices of ordinary citizens. it's all up to you. [applause] this is going to be a close election. and from now until november, the other side will spend more money than at any time in american history. and almost all of it will be on ads that tell you the economy is bad -- it's all obama's fault. he can't fix it because he

thinks government is always the answer; because he doesn't have the experience of making a lot of money in the private sector; or because he is in over his head; or because he thinks everything is just fine. [laughter.] that's what the scary voices in the ads will tell you over and over and over again. that's what mitt romney will say. that's what the republicans in congress will say. and i give them credit -- they have a lot of message discipline. they just repeat over and over and over again the same thing. [laughter.] doesn't matter if it's true, they'll just keep on repeating. that's what they do. but you know what, that may be a plan to win the election; it's sure not a plan to create jobs. it's not a plan to grow the economy.

it's not a plan to pay down our debt. it's not a plan to revive the middle class and restore the american dream. so, durham, if you believe we need a plan for education and energy, for infrastructure and innovation; if you believe that our economy grows best when everybody has a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share, and everybody is playing by the same set of rules -- [applause] -- then i'm going to need you to stand with me as i run for a second term as president. [applause] i'm going to need you. the country is going to need you. [applause] and here in new hampshire, i know you guys have a tradition -- a lot of independents out here. listen, i'm asking you -- vote for anybody else -- democrat, independent, republican --

anybody who shares your views about how this country should move forward. i will work with anyone of any party who believes that we are in this together, that we rise or fall as one nation, and as one people. [applause] it's fashionable right now for people to be cynical. we go in cycles like this, and right now a lot of people are saying, oh, america is doing terribly and this and that, and what are we going to do. let me tell you something. there's no problem out there, no challenge we face, that we do not have the capacity to solve. [applause] we are americans, and we are tougher than whatever tough times may bring us. and what's lacking right now is our politics. what's lacking right now is that some of the worst impulses in our politics have been rewarded. and that's something entirely within your power to solve. and in 2008, we made a commitment to each other. we said, together, he can bring

about change -- even against opposition, even against all kinds of nonsense going on in the campaigns. what we saw, what we witnessed, was that when americans, as citizens, come together nothing can stop them. and i made a commitment to you. i said, you know what, i'm not going to be a perfect president. i'm not a perfect man -- michelle can tell you that. but you know what i did say? i said -- some of you may remember this -- i said i will always tell you where i stand, i will always tell you what i think, what i believe. and i will wake up every single day, fighting as hard as i can for you, fighting as hard as i know how for american families who are out there working hard, who are out there striving, who are doing what they're supposed to be doing.

and you know what, new hampshire, i've kept that promise, because i still believe in you. i believe in the american people. and i need you to keep believing in me. i need you to hit some doors and make some phone calls and register your friends. talk to your neighbors. get on facebook. get on twitter.

let's get to work. let's finish what we started. let's remind the world how a strong economy is built, and remind them why america is the greatest nation on earth. thank you, everybody. god bless you. god bless america. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪ ♪

he travels to boston for fund- raisers. he will conclude his today campaign trip with events in atlanta georgia and a fund- raiser hosted by market anthony. >> when did clean energy become a dirty word? he can believe what you want about our existing sources, like new also believe that there is

an opportunity for clean energy? >> it creates demand in the next 5-10 years for renewable. i think it is happening on a state-by-state basis. it would be much more effective. >> we are using this. it is hitting our homes. north america is the only continent or region not have widespread because cutting off the assembly line. there are still a ton of people out there have believed that the trucks are more likely to burst into flames during a crash. >> developing alternative energy sources including wind and biofuels are part of an energy forum hosted by the "atlantic magazine." >> the veterans affairs

department estimates that 18 veterans take their own lives every day. the defense department confirmed it is on the rise. both departments coasted a suicide conference. -- in hosted a suicide conference. this is 30 minutes. like many might ask why am i here? i believe sharing my father's story is my duty. i believe speaking with those who help our service men and women is an incredible honor. i am here because suicide is an enormous problem in our country. that is why i am here. for duty, honor, country. [applause] my father was not a patriot. he was a bear. [laughter]

in 1985, a group that called themselves the monsters of midway defeated the pages of new england in super bowl xx. my father's teammates and brothers were more than just football fans in the city of chicago. there was group courage and team camaraderie. they epitomized manhood. every man wanted to smoke cigars and dodge tacklers. they embodied things larger than themselves and projected strength even in times of weakness. i would like to share with you some experiences from my childhood.

for those of you who have ever been in a football locker room, my upbringing was filled with nfl-isms with my father sounding like a football coach at times. when i was late for church, he would say, urgency, urgency. when i received a poor grade in school, son, you are only as good as your last play. right now, you are not very good. and of course when i disobey him, son, do you want to be a part of this team jim bank that was my father. a man for whom winning was the only option. his persona of perfection added a heavy burden. the truth of life is that losing is a part of it. we all lose something. our youth, our money. there is no scoreboard. winners and losers come and go. there is always hope. hope is a small word with a

larger meaning. for when hope is lost, all is lost. tiberi 17, 2011, was the day -- february 17, 2011, was the day my father lost hope. he wrote of suspicions of a brain disease and listed his symptoms. memory loss, mood swings, and depression. he asked to give his brain to the nfl. i donated his brain to boston university. i thought it did not share with my family his symptoms, nor did he tell us he was depressed. he hit his feelings, thoughts, and worries by projecting a

persona of strength. i wish my father knew that in order to be strong, you have to be weak. in order to be found, you must first be lost. [applause] this past year for my family has been difficult. it has been a year of healing and a year of reflection. i have found comfort in the words of others, particularly one man who is no stranger to us. robert f. kennedy. moments after the assassination of martin luther king -- he shared a poem. even in our sleep, pain we cannot forgets, until in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of god.

in times of despair, we search for an instant cure, as if there is a magic wands, formula, or secret. recovery takes time. each of us has our contradictory. it is filled with ups and downs, leading us on a never- ending road. there is no closure, only wisdom. we will never be what we were. we must focus on what we can be. over the course of my recovery a major part of my healing can do the -- from the scientific findings of boston university. they concluded that my father suffered from a brain disease linked to a concussion. the neurologists were able to

conclude that he suffered from short-term memory loss and loss of other executive functions. these findings answered many of my family's personal questions. with suicide, the question of what if it is persistent. rather than succumb to what if, i am consumed with answering the question, what now? we face an enormous and complex problem. suicide remains hidden in the shadows of myth and shame. those we wish to help will be our biggest obstacle. suicide is preventable. depression is treatable. if only those who are lost would seek guidance. for those who refuse help because of fear, because of shame -- in the battle of fear and shame, the friend, a son,

daughter is the best weapon. whenever we reach out to our fellow man in moments of despair, we send for it ripples of hope. in time, ripples of hope will cross other ripples of hope and build into a tidal wave of love. a tidal wave of love can sweep down the mightiest depression. we must never give in to the dark hands of depression. my father's last message to me was negative boss leads to negative consequences. he left me a verse from my own battle with life. they who wait for the lord shall renew thy strength. they shall walk and not faint. isaiah 40:31. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you, tregg. i am mike turner, the vice president of mental health america. we are the oldest community- based organization focused on mental health and mental health

issues in the united states. we are 103 years old this year. we were founded by a gentleman who was in voluntarily committed and was appalled by what he found in the asylum system and dedicated himself to ending stigma associated with mental health conditions. tregg came to our chicago affiliate and carol called me and said, this guy is great. you need to get us involved nationally. he is our new national spokesperson. he does not know that yet. [applause] [laughter] we are proud and fortunate to have him indeed. we advocated on behalf of those who live with a mental health condition. we educate the public about the

harm, often mortal harm, stigma does in this country regarding mental-health problems. we serve 37 states. we are proud of that mission. i our symbol is the bell of hope. it sits in our lobby. in 1953 when they shut down the asylum system, we were sent the change in shackles that were used to restrain patients to the wall. we had those chains and shackles melted down and forge into this 300 pound bell. we bring it on special occasions because the message of that bell is to end stigma, and it now. statement kills, especially in the u.s. military.

we have to address it every day. i want to read you some excerpts from our web site. we have a live web site. you can go on and talk about what is on your mind. there are different categories. i went into the section on suicide and suicidal ideation. these are people who attempted suicide. from a forgotten father in washington. i had had difficult times with relationships. i keep everyone at a distance, even those i know i can trust. i can count the number of people i trust on one hand. even with those people, there are doubts. from a woman who lost her son in a boating accident. the doctors wrote me prescriptions for medication and i refused to take the medication for a couple of years. i could not remember to eat when i was hungry. i lost all interest in doing

anything fun. friends stopped coming by and stopped calling. from karen who was saved by an intermission. i would like to ask anyone who reads this to please listen. remember that we are all unique entered -- unique individuals. what is important to you may not be important to them. listen to your spouse, listen to your co-workers, listen. i did not have anyone to listen to me and no one would have ever heard my voice again. tregg's father bent the curve in the nfl on the seriousness of traumatic brain injury. he contributed things to the sport and his family. nha believes there is a unique opportunity in american history and in our culture that is an extraordinarily helpful opportunity.

you can go into any community and go and use the term ptsd and people will know what you are talking about. we cannot blow this opportunity. we cannot miss this chance. we can raise the bar for ever in american society. mental health conditions are the number one most debilitating chronic condition in the world today. the united states leads the rest of the world. we can really make a difference. the focus is on wellness,

prevention, resilience, and recovery. we have something called to the wellness circle. there are three stages, treatment, recovery, wellness. if you are in the green section of that circle, it is ludicrous for you to point across the circle to someone in the deal -- the blue section with a finger of stigma. it really hopeful aspect of a circle is the fact that no matter where you are in the circle, if you ask the right person can seek out the right help, you can find the path back to wellness. i came on board just under three years ago. a retired air force colonel. i worked with the wounded warrior project before i came to mha. i said, we have to be in this space. there is amazing white noise about mental-health and how to respond in an efficient way. we are not addressing that

issue. we have been trying for 10 years to do it we have to try to do this. there are so many players in the space. there is so much white noise in the space. we cannot simply be another program and another effort and more noise that takes up more resources. they said, let's have a conference. we had a one day conference. we brought everybody together that we could think of who have any stake in this game. the author of the 2008 rand study was there. umdnj of new jersey was there. an expert in peer counseling was there. we start off with what we thought was an effective model to bridge the gap between this need and what we thought were enough resources after 10 years of war to meet that need and the gap in between.

we said, we do not have a hidden agenda in this conference. by lunchtime, all 35 people had told us this is the dumbest idea we have ever heard. after lunch, i said, what are we going to do? he said, let's start over. we started the afternoon with, what do we agree on after that conference, i hit the road and we visited our talked about or examine or studied what we thought were a 11 successful national programs that are addressing this issue with an eye toward what are the best practices.

the results of that year of travel have resulted in what we are calling the bell of hope project. it is going to be our signature project in the the military unity for as far forward as i can see. based on some of the things we have seen at this conference, we believe there is still a gap between population needs and the services that are being delivered. what is interesting is that i think the need is growing in the available services and resources are growing. the resources on either end are getting bigger and bigger. while they are getting bigger and bigger, the center point of those circles are moving farther apart. there is a larger gap between these communities and the military that i have seen in my

lifetime. the gap between the circles is roughly the same. this piece in here is where we need the help. let me give you a couple of stories to illustrate that gap. i was in charge of the carrier, france. we were fortunate to have the care giver project that we spearheaded. we brought 18 caregivers of severely disabled that risk severely -- severely disabled veterans and we had representatives that were familiar with all the programs available to caregivers of severely disabled veterans. all of those representatives talked about all the programs in place to help those caregivers and all of the progress they made to help those care givers. at the end of the hour, one of the caregivers raised her hand and said, i think i speak for all of the care givers in this

room when i tell you, we do not have a clue about what you are talking about. some of the senior officials in that room canceled meetings. they talked about, how can we bridge the gap. the second story happens in october. one of the places we went was the indiana national guard, -- national guard armory. it is about 5 miles up the highway. we had a slot for david and i to explain the project to 200 national guard members and their families. i leaned over and said, this could be a huge thud. i do not want you to get your hopes up.

we did our presentation. they kept us 45 minutes after the scheduled one our talk. let me give you some of the comments. the first person stood up and said, we know we have mental health issues. we are not ashamed to say that. we talk about it all the time. what i really need help with is day care because i cannot find any and i do not know where to turn to get debt -- get day care help. you are defer to organization in 10 years to talk to us about mental health. this illustrates the gap we have to address in order to make practical reality and the wonderful practices and programs i have seen evidence in this

conference. we feel strongly that the solution is not a top down solution. i do not know how anybody works in the aid. you are walking around with target all over your front end -- i do not know how anyone works in the va. everybody i have met is professional, world class, top- notch. [applause] i do not the least -- i do not believe va and d.o.d. should be charged with solving this problem. we are losing this generation from the military community because we have not yet solved this problem. we must ban this curve in a significant way and we have to do it now. i went on the va web site last night. as of 2010, there are 22.7 million vets in the united

states. 37% are enrolled in the va health care system. of those enrolled, 47% availed themselves of outpatient care. that means 17% of veterans use va services. how do we solve that problem? i think it is incumbent on the civilian community to stop putting yellow ribbons on their bumpers and stand up at the community level and start to solve this problem. an interesting side note. 21% of the people enrolled did not know they were enrolled. if everything we have talked about worked perfectly, you have reached 70% of the affected the veteran population.

that does not count dependence. another conclusion we have reached over the last year is that integrated care is the answer. early in the process. we think the best way to respond with a suicide prevention protocol is not to respond when suicidal ideation is indicated. it is when someone stands up and says, i need day care. how do i get that? that is when we stand up and address suicide prevention.

only america's communities can solve this. i have been asking since 1997. america's communities have been trying desperately to do that. they are competing with ever dwindling resources. i have been in the nonprofit business since 1997. every nonprofit is fighting to and nail for every penny we can get. here is what came out of the conference in february of 2011. peers work. does everyone remember the compelling story that was told? it started with a peer connection. peers work. they need to be trained. they need to be certified to a national standard.

hopefully, we will now hold funding from a foundation that ask us to design and implement the first peer training organization. peers work. peers navigate. their principal function is to navigate at the community level. it is not about being a peer specialist or mental health. it is about entering every single need.

they need to know what is available in every sector of service. when that member says i need day care, the peers says, i got it. i will get you take care and we will follow up until you get it. local community collaboration. the community is trying to collaborate and create a blueprint on how you collaborate on community services. it is an important function. retired, active duty. they need to have access to an online resources director in their community that rates the services available. it tells what insurance plans day except, what is my point of contact. are you excepting new clients. i have had 25 people rates this 3 stars out of five. those functions have to exist

at the local community level so there is an easier way to find what community resources are available. we need a really aggressive outreach program. the man took his life in 2007. a congressman from new jersey got a bill passed. i went and talked to the man's wife and said, i want to make sure we do not duplicate efforts and do not solve the problem because we are turning around in circles like a lot of us tend to do. she really appreciated the visit. i went to the vet to vet program in new jersey. it is a 10 minute hard drive

from the man's front door. that is only going to be solved by organizations that exist and have name recognition at the community level. based on our conference findings over these 11 years, we believe solutions should be based on four principles. peer navigation have to lie at the heart of it. peers can overcome the stigma. it is the friend at the front door. delivery of integrated services. measurable outcomes. if i cannot measure it, it is not a success. if you hear about a program in a community -- we get this all the time. people are already doing that. i asked three questions. how many clients that you helped? what are the long term outcomes for that client? what does your client feel about

the help you have provided? if you cannot answer those three questions, you cannot claim success. anything you do have to have a measurable and outcome. local flexibility perry it is not one size fits all. it is one size fits one. there has to be skeletal structure that enables the butterflies to fly in formation. we want to get everybody moving in the same direction in a way that you can pour a unique community resources into that frame work and have them the most efficient. ideally, we would like to start with the military community. this template will work for all social services. americans are ready to hear this message. if i can have the slide up please. this is what we call the community guidon model. they have worked with us to expand it and make it more generic.

it is to create a national network of peer navigators' using this model. it is comprised of six ranges of service. you can consider the inner ring the most important and the outer ring the least important. if you say, have you implemented the community guidon model, they say, no, not yet. the university of michigan has a terrific peer program. they need to be backed up by military technicians. they have mapped every active duty guard, reserve, an independent in every county in

the united states. they have also backed military clinicians. they are continuing to do that -- they have also mapped military clinicians. they need to be managed by a database that allows continuous follow-up. the best model we have found is probably community blueprint. the community blueprint told us it is difficult to get community resources to collaborate with each other. they need to be divided into sectors of service. short-term needs and workforce development. i have behavioral health and physical health. we had to combine that because i realize i was inviting out types of health. let me give you a quick statistic. the peer program's hallmarks is they have great statistics.

78% did not come for mental health needs. they came for a career needs. 73% had more than one sector of can they needed help with. only 16% initially cut the system for a mental health need. annual community cost without peer navigator, $6.9 million. at a community cost with peer navigator, $200,000. we need to do it at the community level. we need your help and we need your money. this is a compelling need.

it will be solved at the local community level, not from the top down. thank you all for your attention. >> the supreme court struck down most of an arizona law that requires police officers to review a person's immigration status if they suspect a person is in the country illegally. the court struck down provisions that would have made it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek work in arizona. the officer can press a person without a warrant if they have probable will cause of a person is illegal immigrant. as you look at the decision over the next several hours,

thriving small businesses.