o get government assistance. my reply? no, i'm making it easier to get a job. isn't that what it's all about? [cheering] gov. walker: strong families are important in this world. you know that strong families are important and we know the children are raised in a household and are more like finish school and get a good job. we need a federal government that can stand up and get rid of the marriage penalty and welfare policies that make it hard for fathers to play an active role. we need to encourage families. i know that both of my parents

were so important for david and me as we grew up as kids. we try to be good role models, and they turned out pretty well. [cheering] gov. walker: we are so proud of them, and i think about matt and alex and all the others in their generation. for them, i want them to grow up in a more free and prosperous country. that is really about the american dream, there. [cheering] gov. walker: now, to ensure that prosperity, we need to be for a progrowth economic plan that enables our individuals and our families to earn, to save, and to achieve their piece of the american dream.

there is a real contrast out there. instead of the top-down government knows the best approach, we need to build the economy from the ground up in a way that is new and fresh, organic and dynamic, that says as long as you don't violate the health and safety is your neighbor, go out and start euro career, build your own business, live your life. [cheering] gov. walker: you see, that is freedom. the kind of freedom that is the cornerstone of the american dream. we have a plan to help more people live that dream -- a plan that will help more people create more jobs and higher wages. you know what it starts with? we need to repeal obamacare once and for all. [cheering] gov. walker: we need to repeal the so-called affordable care act. we need to put patients and families back in charge of their health care decisions, not the

federal government. [cheering] gov. walker: many of you here know when i first became .know when i first became governor i literally allowed in the state to join the federal lawsuit against obamacare. we need a president who on the first day will call on the congress to once and for all repeal obamacare entirely. [cheering] gov. walker: then we need to rein in the out of control regulations, like a blanket on the nation's economy.

let's get rid of the bureaucratic red tape. as governor, i called for a moratorium on new regulation -- we can do the same in washington and then we can repeal all the other bad obama regulations to get this economy going again. [cheering] gov. walker: next, we need to put in place and all of the above energy policy that says we are going to use the abundance of what god has given us in america and on this continent. [cheering] gov. walker: that's right. we are an energy rich country, and we can literally start refueling our economic recovery. we need a president who on day one will approve the keystone pipeline. [cheering] gov. walker: that's right. a proof that pipeline and put in place a plan to level the playing field for all forms of energy. then we need to help people get the education and the skills that they need to succeed, because we know if we do that,

we can help people find careers that pay far more than the minimum wage. here in wisconsin, we reformed public education, and we provided more quality choices. quality choices for families. you see, i trust families and i trust parents to make the right decision for their children. [cheering] gov. walker: i believe that every child, every child regardless of zip code or background or what their parents do, i believe that every child deserves access to a great education, be it at a public or a charter or a choice or a private or a virtual or a homeschool. every child deserves access to great education. [cheering] gov. walker: that is why i want to work -- and along with that i want to make sure we have high standards.

but those standards should be set at the local level. no common core, no nationwide scoreboard. [cheering] gov. walker: that is why i work so hard to take power and money out of washington and send it back to our states and our schools where it is more effective, more efficient, and more accountable to the american people. [cheering] gov. walker: think about this -- if you would take a dollar out of your purse or wallet, where

would you rather spend it? in washington or at your child's school? i'd rather spend it at your child's school, and if you give me the chance, we will send those dollars back to help your child and your school. [cheering] gov. walker: and then, and then, we need to lower the burden on our taxpayers, so you can keep more of your hard-earned dollars. [cheering] gov. walker: we need to do that for individuals, we need to do that for individuals as well as job creators, we need to make our job creators competitive again in the world so they can bring more jobs back from overseas to put more of our fellow americans back to work right here in america. [cheering] gov. walker: and you know what? we can do it. we can do it because we did it in wisconsin and we can do it in washington. some people wonder why i spent so much time focused on lowering the tax burden and why i want to do it in washington.

i like to shop at kohl's, so over the years i learned that if i am going to buy a new shirt i go to that rack at those $29.99 -- now it is $19.99. then we get the little scratch off -- where you may get 30% off. then as the clerk is ringing it up, jeanette pulls out some of that kohl's cash, and next thing you know, you don't even need to buy the shirt. [laughter] [cheering] gov. walker: not really, but it seems like it. so how does a great company like coals make money? they make up in volume, right? they can charge that higher price that only a few of you

could afford, but they lower the price and broaden the base and make more money off of volume. that is the thing about your money -- the government could charge you a higher rate than some of us could afford, but if you lower the right and broaden the base, we expand the volume of people who can participate in the economy. [cheering] gov. walker: years ago, we used to call that -- a similar plan under ronald reagan, back then we called it -- today i call it the kohl's curve because i believe you can spend your money far better than the better of government and when we do the economy will get a whole lot better. [cheering] gov. walker: to prosper, however, we need to live in a safe and stable world. the commander-in-chief has a

sacred duty to protect the american people. in my lifetime, the best president when it comes to national security and foreign policy was the governor from california. [cheering] gov. walker: under his leadership, we rebuilt the military, we stood up for our allies, we stood up to our enemies, and without apology, we stood for american values. [cheering] gov. walker: that led to one of the most peaceful times in modern american history.

sadly, today, under the clinton -- or, under the obama-clinton doctrine, america's leading from behind, and is headed toward disaster. think about this -- we have a president who drew a line in the sand and allowed it to be crossed. a president who called isis the jv squad, called yemen a success story and iran a place we can do business with. iran. [booing] gov. walker: when my brother david and i were kids i can remember us tying ribbons around the tree in front of our house during the 444 days that iran held 52 americans hostage. one of those hostages was a governor who grew up down the way. he was the youngest of the hostages, a marine who had just been assigned to serve the u.s. embassy in tehran. [cheering]

gov. walker: he knows that iran is not a place to do business with. iran hasn't changed much since he was released. looking ahead, we need to terminate the bad deal with iran on the very first day in office. [cheering] gov. walker: we need to terminate that deal on the very first day in office, put in place rippling economic sanctions on iran and convince our allies to do exactly the same thing. [cheering] gov. walker: earlier this year president obama declared -- he

proclaimed -- that the greatest threat to future generations as global warming, climate change. [booing] gov. walker: well, mr. president, i respectfully disagree. the greatest threat to future generations is radical islamic terrorism, and we need to do something about it. [cheering] gov. walker: we can start by listing the political restrictions on our military personnel already in iraq and empower them to help our kurd and sunni allies reclaim the

territory taken by isis, because you know what? on behalf of your children in mind, i'd rather take the fight to them instead of waiting till they bring the fight to us. [cheering] gov. walker: we need to acknowledge that israel is an ally and should start treating israel like an ally. [cheering] gov. walker: there should be no daylight between our two countries. that is why early this year, when i went to israel, i not only met with the prime minister, i met with the opposition leader, to let them know that if i was president there would be no daylight between the united states and

israel going forward. [cheering] gov. walker: we need to stop the aggression of russia into sovereign nations. putin believes in the old lenin principle. he has found a whole lot of mush over the last four years. [applause] gov. walker: the united states needs a foreign policy that will put steel in front of our enemies. [cheering] gov. walker: we need to stop

china's cyberattacks, slow their advances and international waters, and speak out about their abysmal human rights record. [cheering] gov. walker: and we need to have the capacity to protect our national security interests here and abroad, and those of our allies. that begins by rebuilding the defense budget by going back to the levels proposed by secretary of defense gates. [cheering] gov. walker: we need to honor our men and women in uniform by giving them the resources that they need to make a safe, and going forward by giving them the quality and timely health care that they deserve when they return home. [cheering] gov. walker: but most of all the best way we can honor them is by fighting to win.

you see, this is important. our goal should be peace, but there will be times when america must fight. and if we must, americans fight to win. [cheering] gov. walker: going forward, the world must know that there is no greater friend and no worse enemy than the united states of america. [cheering] [chanting] gov. walker: america is a great country.

it is a great country. and you know what? we just have to start leading it again. it is not too late. we can do it because we have done it before. veterans remind me that what makes america great -- what makes us exceptional -- what makes us the greatest country in all of the world -- all throughout our history, in times of crisis, be it economic or fiscal, be it military or spiritual, there has been men and women of courage who have been willing to stand up and think more about future generations that they thought about their own political futures. ladies and gentlemen, this is one of those times in american history. [cheering] gov. walker: and so, after a great deal of thought and a whole lot of prayer, we are so honored to have you join with us

today as we officially announce that we are running to serve as your president of the united states of america. [cheering] gov. walker: jeanette and i want our sons and all the other sons and daughters to grow up in a country that is as great as the country we inherited. americans deserve a president who will fight and win for them.

[cheering] gov. walker: someone who will stand out for the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [cheering] gov. walker: someone who will stand up for our religious freedoms and all of our other constitutional rights. [cheering] gov. walker: someone who will stand up for america. you see, it doesn't matter whether you come from a big city or a suburb or a small town -- i will fight and win for you. [cheering] gov. walker: healthy or sick born or unborn, i will fight and win for you. [cheering] gov. walker: young or old or anywhere in between, i will

fight and win for you. [cheering] gov. walker: over the years, i have met some amazing people many of whom have come here and other places in the world. the people i have met tell me that the reason they came here was not to become dependent on the government. the reason i came here was because america is one of the few places left in the world where it doesn't matter what class you were born into or what your parents did for a living.

in america, you can do and be anything you want. that is the american spirit. [cheering] gov. walker: you see, in america, the opportunity should be equal but the outcome is up to each and every one of us here across this great country.

that is why we just took a day off to celebrate the fourth of july and not the 15th of april because in april, we celebrate our independence from the government, not our dependence on it. [cheering] gov. walker: that is why i love america. that is why we, we, we love america. and working together, we can fight and win for america. thank you for coming out. god bless you all for being here. bless our military. and may god continue to bless the united states of america. [cheering] ♪

>> nasa promises a planetary unveiling. that is live. here about the power customs has to influence deportation cases and giving some illegal immigrants legal status.

we will have a look at the european union and their future. more presidential politics. hillary clinton says, if elected, she will build an economy that benefits everyone. she spoke at a progressive university. ms. clinton: thank you so much. thank you very much. and thanks to everyone at the new school for welcoming us today. i'm delighted to be back. over the past few months i have had the opportunity to listen to americans' concerns about an economy that still isn't delivering for them. it's not delivering the way that it should. it still seems to most americans that i have spoken with that it is stacked for those at the top. but i have also heard about the

hopes that people have for their future. going to college without drowning in debt. starting that small business they have always dreamed about. getting a job that pays well enough to support a family. and provide for a secure retirement. previous generations of americans built the greatest economy and strongest middle class the world has ever known. on the promise of a basic bargain. if you work hard and do your part, you should be able to get ahead. and when you get ahead, america gets ahead.

but over the past several decades that bargain has eroded. our job is to make it strong again. for 35 years republicans have argued that if we give more wealth to those at the top by cutting their taxes and letting big corporations write their own rules, it will trickle down. it will trickle down to everyone else. yet every time they have a chance to try that approach, it explodes the national debt concentrates wealth even more, and does practically nothing to help hardworking americans. twice now in the past 20 years a democratic president has had to come in and clean up the mess left behind. \[cheers and applause\]

ms. clinton: i think the results speak for themselves. under president clinton, i like the sound of that, america saw the longest peacetime expansion in our history. nearly 23 million jobs, a balanced budget, and a surplus for the future. and most importantly, incomes rose across the board not just for those already at the top. eight years later, president obama and the american people's hard work pulled us back from the brink of depression. president obama saved the auto industry, imposed new rules on wall street, and provided health care to 16 million americans. \[cheers and applause\] ms. clinton: now today, today as the shadow of crisis recedes and longer term challenges come into focus, i believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy.

you can't have one without the other. we can't create enough jobs and new businesses without more growth. and we can't build strong families and support our consumer economy without more fairness. we need both. because while america is standing again, we are not yet running the way we should. corporate profits are at near record highs, and americans are working as hard as ever. but paychecks have barely budged in real terms. families today are stretched in so many directions and so are their budgets.

out of pocket costs with health care, childcare, caring for aging parents are rising a lot faster than wages. i hear this everywhere i go. the single mom who talked to me about juggling a job and classes at community college while raising three kids. she doesn't expect anything to come easy. but if she got a raise everything wouldn't be quite so hard. the grandmother who works around the clock providing childcare to other people's kids. she's proud of her work. but the pay is barely enough to live on, especially with the

soaring price of her prescription drugs. the young entrepreneur whose dream of buying the bowling alley where he worked as a teenager was nearly derailed by husband student debt. if he can grow his business, he'll be able to pay off his debt and pay his employees including himself, more, too. millions of hardworking americans tell similar stories. wages need to rise to keep up with costs. paychecks need to grow. families who work hard and do their best part to get ahead and stay ahead. but defining economic challenge of our time is clear. grow. families who work hard and do their best part to get ahead and stay ahead. but defining economic challenge of our time is clear. we must raise incomes for hardworking americans so they can afford a middle class life. we must drive strong and steady income growth that lifts up

families and lifts up our country. and that -- that will be my mission from the first day i'm president to the last. ms. clinton: i will get up every day thinking about the families of america like the family that i came from with a hardworking dad who started a small business and scrimped and saved and gave us a good middle class life. i'll be thinking about all the people that i represented here in new york and the stories that they told me and that i worked with them to improve. and i will, as your president, take on this challenge against the backdrop of major changes in our economy and the global economy that didn't start with the recession and won't end with the recovery. advances in technology and expanding global trade have created whole new areas of commercial activity and opened new markets for our exports. but too often they are also

polarizing our economy. benefiting high-skilled workers but displacing or downgrading blue collar jobs and other mid level jobs that used to provide solid incomes for millions of americans. today's marketplace focuses too much on the short-term. like second-to-second financial trading and quarterly earnings report. and too little on long-term investment. meanwhile, many americans are making extra money renting out a spare room, designing websites selling products they designed themselves at home or even driving their own car. this on demand or so-called gig economy is creating exciting opportunities and unleashing innovation. but it's also raising hard questions about workplace protection and what a good job will look like in the future. so all of these trends are real and none, none is going away. but they don't determine our destiny. the choices we make as a nation

matter. and the choices we make in the years ahead will set the stage for what american life in the middle class in our economy will be like in this century. as president, i will work with every possible partner to turn the tide. to make these currents of change start working for us more than against us. to strengthen not hollow out the american middle class. because i think at our best that's what americans do. we are problem solvers not deniers. we don't hide from change. we harness it.

the measure of our success must be how much incomes rise for hardworking families, not just for successful c.e.o.s and money managers. and not just some arbitrary growth target untethered to people's lives and livelihoods. \[applause\] ms. clinton: i want to see our economy work for the struggling, the striving, and the successful. we are not going to find all the answers we need today in the play books of the past. we can't go back to the old policies that failed us before. nor can we just replay the successes. today is not 1993. it's not 2009. so we need solutions for the big challenges we face now.

so today i'm proposing an agenda to raise incomes for hardworking americans. an agenda for strong growth, fair growth, and long-term growth. let me begin with strong growth. more growth means more jobs and more new businesses. more jobs gives people choices about where to work. employers have to offer higher wages and better benefits in order to compete with each other to hire new workers and keep the productive ones. that's why economists tell us that getting closer to full employment is crucial for raising incomes. small businesses create more than 60% of new american jobs on net. so they have to be a top priority. i have said, i want to be the small business president and i mean it. and throughout this campaign i'm

going to be talking about how we empower entrepreneurs with less red tape, easier access to capital, tax relief, and simplification. i'll also push for broader business tax reform to spur investment in america, closing those loopholes that reward companies for sending jobs and profits overseas. \[applause\] and i know it's not always how we think about this, but another engine of strong growth should be comprehensive immigration reform. i want you to hear this. bringing millions of hardworking people into the formal economy would increase our gross domestic product by an estimated $700 billion over 10 years. it then there are the new public investments that will help establish businesses and entrepreneurs create the next generation of high-paying jobs. when we get americans moving, we

get our country moving. so let's establish a infrastructure bank that can channel more public and private funds. channel those funds to finance world class airports, railways roads, bridges, and ports. and let's build those faster broadband networks and make sure there's a greater diversity of providers so consumers have more choice. and really, there's no excuse not to make greater investments and cleaner renewable energy right now. our economy, obviously, runs on

energy, and the time has come to make america the world's clean energy superpower. i advocate that because these investments will create millions of jobs. save us money in the long run. and help us meet the threats of climate change. and let's fund the scientific and medical research that spawns innovative companies and creates entire new industries just as the project, the sequence the human genome did in the 1990's, and president obama's initiatives on precision medicine and brain research will do in the coming years. i will set ambitious goals in all of these areas in the months ahead. but today let me emphasize another key ingredient of strong growth that often goes overlooked and undervalued.

breaking down barriers so more americans participate more fully in the work force, especially women. we are in a global competition as i'm sure you have noticed, and we can't afford to leave talent on the sideline, but that's exactly what we are doing today. when we leave people out or write them off, we not only shortchange them and their dreams, we shortchange our country and our future.

the movement of women into the american work force over the past 40 years was responsible for more than $3.5 trillion in economic growth. but that progress has stalled. the united states used to rank seventh out of 24 advance countries in women's labor force participation. by 2013 we had dropped to 19. that represents a lot of unused potential for our economy and for american families. studies show that nearly a third of this decline relative to other countries is because they are expanding family friendly policies like paid leave and we are not. we should be making it easier for americans to be both good workers and good parents and caregivers. women who want to work should be able to do so without worrying every day about how they are going to take care of their children or what will happen if a family member gets sick. last year -- last year while i was at the hospital here in

manhattan waiting for little charlotte to make her grand entrance, one of the nurses said thank you for fighting for paid leave. we began to talk about it. she sees first hand what it means for herself and her colleagues, as well as for the working parents that she helps take care of. it's time to recognize that quality, affordable childcare is not a luxury, it's a growth strategy. and it's way past time to end the outrage of so many women still earning less than men on the job and women of color making even less. all this lost money adds up. for some women it's thousands of dollars every year. now, i am well aware that for far too long these challenges have been dismissed by some as women's issues. those days are over. fair pay and fair scheduling

paid family leave and earned sick days, childcare are essential to our competitiveness and our growth. and we can do this in a way that doesn't impose unfair burdens on businesses, especially small businesses. as president, i'll fight to put families first just like i have my entire career. now, beyond strong growth we also need fair growth and that will be the second key driver of

raising incomes. the evidence is in. inequality is a drag on our entire economy. so this is the problem we need to tackle. now, you may have heard governor bush say last week that americans just need to work longer hours. well, he must not have met very many american workers.

\[applause\] let him tell that to the nurse who stands on her feet all day or the teacher who is in that classroom or the trucker who drives all night. let him tell that to the fast food workers marching in the streets for better pay. they don't need a lecture. they need a raise. the truth is the current rules for our economy do reward some work like financial trading, for example. much more than other work like actually building and selling things. the work that has always been the backbone of our economy. to get all incomes rising again, we need to strike a better balance. if you work hard, you ought to be paid fairly.

so we do have to raise the minimum wage. and implement president obama's new rules on overtime. and then we have to go further. i'll crack down on bosses who exploit employees by misclassifying them as contractors or even steal their wages to make paychecks stretch we need to take on the major strains on family budgets. i'll protect the affordable care act and build on it to lower out-of-pocket health care costs ms. clinton: and to make prescription drugs more affordable. will help families look forward to retirement by defending and enhancing social security and making it easier to save for the future.

now, many of these proposals are time tested and more than a little battle scarred. we need new ideas as well. and one that i believe in and will fight for is profit sharing. hardworking americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate earnings they help produce. so i will propose ways to encourage companies to share profits with their employees. that's good for workers and good for businesses. studies show that profit sharing that gives everyone a stake in a company's success can boost productivity and put money directly into employees' pockets. it's a win-win. later this week in new hampshire, i'll have more to say about how we do this. another priority must be reforming our tax code.

now, we hear republican candidates talk a lot about tax reform. but take a good look at their plans. senator rubio would cut taxes for households making around $3 million a year by almost $240,000, which is way more than three times the earnings of a typical family. well, that's a sure budget busting give away to the super wealthy, and that's the kind of bad economics you're likely to hear from any of the candidates on the other side. i have a different take. guided by some simple principles. first, hardworking families need and deserve tax relief and simplification. second, those at the top have to pay their fair share. that's why i support the buffet rule, which makes sure that millionaires don't pay lower rates than their secretaries. i have also called for closing the carried interest loophole which lets wealthy financiers pay an artificially low rate. and let's agree that hugely successful companies that benefit from everything america has to offer should not be able to game the system and avoid paying their fair share.

especially while companies who can't afford high-priced lawyers and lobbyists end up paying more. ms. clinton: alongside tax reform, it's time to stand up to efforts across our country to undermine worker bargaining power, which has been proven again and again to drive up wages. republican governors like scott walker have made their names stomping on workers' rights. and practically all the republican candidates hope to do the same as president.

i will fight back against these mean-spirited, misguided attacks. evidence -- evidence shows that the decline of unions may be responsible for a third of the increased -- increase of inequality among men. if we want to get serious about raising incomes, we have to get serious about supporting union workers. \[applause\] ms. clinton: and let me just say a word here about trade. the greek crisis, as well as the chinese stock market have reminded us that growth here at home and growth an ocean away are linked in a common global economy. trade has been a major driver of the economy over recent decades, but it has also contributed to

hollowing out our manufacturing base and many hardworking communities. so we do need to set a high bar for trade agreements. we should support them if they create jobs, raise wages, and advance our national security. and we should be prepared to walk away if they don't. to create fair growth, we need to create opportunity for more americans. i love the saying abraham lincoln, who in many ways was not only the president who saved our union but the president who understood profoundly the importance of the middle class and the importance of government playing its role in providing opportunities. he talked about giving americans a fair chance in the race of life. i believe that with all my heart, but i also believe it has to start really early, at birth.

high quality early learning, especially in the first five years, can set children on the course to future success and raise lifetime incomes by 25%. and i'm committed to seeing every 4-year-old in america have access to high quality preschool in the next 10 years. but i want to do more. i want to call for a great outpouring of support from our faith community, our business community, our academic institutions, from philanthropy and civic groups and concerned citizens, to really help parents, particularly parents who are facing a lot of obstacles, to really help

prepare their own children in that 0-4 age group. 80% of your brain is physically formed by the age of 3. that's why families like mine read, talk, and sing endlessly to our granddaughter. i have said that her first words are going to be enough with the reading and the talking and the singing. but we do it not only because we love doing it, even though i'll admit it's a little embarrassing reading a book to a 2 week old or 6 week old, or 10-week old we do it because we understand it's building her capacity for learning. and the research shows by the time she enters kindergarten she will have heard 30 million more words than a child from a less advantaged background. think of what we are losing because we are not doing everything we can to reach out to those families. we know again from so much research here in the united states and around the world that that early help, that mentoring, that intervention, to help those

often stressed out young moms understand more about what they can do and to avoid the difficulties that stand in the way of their being able to really get their child off to the best possible start. we also have to invest in our students and teachers at every level and in the coming weeks and months i will lay out specific steps to improve our schools, make college truly affordable, and help americans refinance their student debt. and let's embrace -- \[applause\] let's embrace the idea of lifelong learning. in an age of technological change, we need to provide

pathways to get skills and credentials for new occupations and create online platforms to connect workers to jobs. there are exciting efforts under way and i want to support and scale the one that is show results. as we pursue all these policies, we can't forget our fellow americans hit so hard and left behind by this changing world. from the inner cities, to coal country, to indian country talent is universal. you find it everywhere. but opportunity is not. there are nearly six million young people age 16 to 24 in america today who are not in school or at work. the numbers for young people of color are particularly staggering. a quarter of young black men and nearly 15% of all latino youth cannot find a job.

we've got to do a better way of coming up to match the growing middle class incomes we want to generate with more pathways into the middle class. i firmly believe that the best anti-poverty program is a job, but that's hard to say if there aren't enough jobs for people that we are trying to help lift themselves out of poverty. that's why i called for reviving the new market tax credit and empowerment zones to create greater incentives to invest in poor and remote areas. when all americans have the chance to study hard, work hard, and share in our country's prosperity, that's fair growth. it's what i have always believed in and it's what i will fight for as president. now, the third key driver of income alongside strong growth and fair growth must be long-term growth. too many pressures in our economy push us toward short-termism.

many business leaders see this. they have talked to me about it. one has called it the problem of quarterly capitalism. they say everything's focused on the next earnings report or the short-term share price. and the result is too little attention on the sources of long-term growth, research and development, physical capital, and talent. net business investment, which includes things like factories machines, and research labs have declined as a share of the economy. in recent years, some of our biggest companies have spent more than half their earnings to buy back their own stock, and another third or more to pay dividends. that doesn't leave a lot left to raise pay or invest in the workers who made those profits possible or to make new investments necessary to ensure a company's future success. these trends need to change. and i believe that many business leaders are eager to embrace their responsibilities, not just

to the day's share price but also to workers, communities and ultimately to our country and indeed our planet. now, i'm not talking about charity. i'm talking about clear eyed capitalism. many companies have prospered by improving wages and training their workers that then yields higher productivity, better service, and larger profit. now, it's easy to try to cut costs by holding down or even decreasing pay and other investments to inflate quarterly stock prices but i would argue that's bad for business in the long run and it's really bad for our country. workers are assets.

investing in them pays off. higher wages pay off. training pays off. to help more companies do that i propose a new p $1,500 tax credit for every worker they train and hire. and i will soon be proposing a new plan to reform capital gains taxes to reward longer term investments that create jobs more than just quick trade. i will propose reforms to help and focus on the next decade and not just the next day. i will empower the outside

investors and discourage the ones who act like corporate raiders. nowhere can and should play in our economy. helping main street grow and prosper and boosting new companies that make america more competitive globally. as we all know, in the years before the crash, financial firms piled risk upon risk, and regulators in washington either couldn't or wouldn't keep up. i was alarmed by this gathering storm and called for addressing the risks of derivatives cracking down on subprime mortgages and improving financial oversight. under president obama's leadership, we've imposed tough new reels that deal with some of

the challenges on wall street, but those rules have been under assault by republicans in congress and those running for president. i will fight back against these attacks and protect the reforms we've made. we can do that and still ease burdens on community banks to encourage responsible loans to people and local businesses they know and trust. we have to go beyond dodd-frank. to many of our major financial institutions are still too complex and too risky, and the problems are not limited to the big banks that get all the headlines. serious risks are emerging from institutions in the so-called shadow banking system, including hedge funds, high-frequency traders, nonbank finance companies. so many new kinds of entities which receive little oversight at all. stories of misconduct by

individuals and institutions in the financial industry are shocking. hsbc, allowing drug cartels to launder money, five major banks pleading guilty to felony charges for conspiring to manipulate currency exchange and interest rates, there can be no justification or tolerance for this kind of criminal behavior. [applause] ms. clinton: and while institutions have paid large fines and in some cases admitted guilt, too often it has seemed that the human beings responsible get off with limited consequences or none at all even when they've already pocketed the gains. this is wrong and on my watch it will change. over the course -- [applause]

ms. clinton: over the course of this campaign, i will offer plans to rein in excessive risks on wall street and ensure that stock markets work for everyday investors, not just high-frequency traders and those with the best or fastest connections. i will appoint and empower regulators who understand that too big to fail is still too big a problem. we'll ensure -- [applause] ms. clinton: we'll ensure that no firm is too complex to manage or oversee, and we will prosecute individuals as well as firms when they commit fraud or other criminal wrongdoing. and -- [applause] ms. clinton: when the government recovers money from corporations or individuals for harming the public, it should go into a separate trust fund to benefit

the public. it could, for example, help modernize infrastructure or even be returned directly to taxpayers. now, reform is never easy. but we've done it before in our country, and we have to get it right this time. and, yes, we need leadership from the financial industry and across the private sector to join with us. two years ago the head of the chicago mercantile exchange, terry duffy, published an op-ed in "the wall street journal" that really caught my attention. he wrote, and i quote, i'm concerned that those of us in financial services have forgotten who we serve and that the public knows it. some wall streeters can too easily slip into regarding their work as a kind of money-making game, divorced from the concerns of main street, unquote.

i think we should listen to terry duffy. of course, long-term growth is only possible if the public sector steps up as well. so it's time to end the era of budget brinksmanship and stop careening from one self-inflicted crisis to another. it's time to stop having debates over the small stuff and focus how we're going to tackle the big stuff together. how do we respond to technological change in a way that creates more good jobs than it displaces or destroys? can we sustain a boom in advanced manufacturing? what are the best ways to nurture startups outside the successful corridors like silicon valley? questions like these demand thoughtful and mature debate from our policymakers in government, from our leaders in the private sector, our economists, our academics,

others that can come together to the table and on behalf of america perform their patriotic duty to make sure our economy keeps working and our middle class keeps growing. [applause] ms. clinton: so government has to be smarter, simpler, more focused itself on long-term investments than short-term politics and be a better partner to cities, states and the private sector. washington has to be a better steward of america's tax dollars and americans' trust and please, let's get back to making decisions that rely on evidence more than ideology. [applause]

ms. clinton: that's what i'll do as president. i will seek out and welcome any good idea that is actually based on reality. [laughter] ms. clinton: i want to have principled and pragmatic and progressive policies that really move us forward together, and i will propose ways to ensure that our fiscal outlook is sustainable, including by continuing to restrain health care costs, which remain one of the key drivers of long-term deficit. i will make sure washington learns from how well local governments, businesses and nonprofits are working together in successful cities and towns across america. you know, passing legislation is not the only way to drive progress. as president i will use the power to convene, connect and collaborate, to build partnerships that actually gets things done.

because above all, we have to break out of the poisonous partisan gridlock and focus on the long-term needs of our country. [applause] ms. clinton: i confess. maybe it's the grandmother in me, but i believe that part of public service is planting trees under whose shade you'll never sit. and the vision i've laid out here today for strong growth fair growth and long-term growth, all working together will get incomes rising again, will help working families get ahead and stay ahead. that is the test of our time. and i'm inviting everyone to please join me to do your part. that's what great countries do. that's what our country always has done.

we rise to challenges. it's not about left, right or center. it's about the future versus the past. i'm running for president to build an america for tomorrow, not yesterday. an america built on growth and fairness, an america where if you do your part you will reap the rewards, where we don't leave anyone behind. [applause]

ms. clinton: thank you, all. thank you. i just want to leave you with one more thought. i want every child, every child in our country, not just the granddaughter of a former president or a former secretary of state, but every child to have the chance to live up to his or her god-given potential. please join me in that mission. let's do it together. thank you, all, so much. [cheers and applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

♪ >> this weekend on c-span's road to the white house. two major political event interests iowa and we're the only place you can watch or listen to these events in their entirety. friday night at 8:00 eastern, we'll be live in cedar rapids for the hall of fame dinner. it will mark the first time that all five democratic presidential candidates share the same stage and then we'll be live in ames

where nine republican presidential candidates are scheduled to speak. c-span's road to the white house, 2016. we take you there. >> another presidential campaign event from today was held by republican rick santorum. he said family structure will be among the key issues of the election and he supports a national standard of marriage. he also answered questions on immigration, the recent supreme court decision and family values. hosted by the christian science monitor, this is an hour.

mr. cook: our guest today is former pennsylvania senator and current presidential candidate rick santorum. his last visit with us was in july of 2005. we are glad to have him back. he was born in virginia but moved to pennsylvania when he was 7. he's a graduate of penn state. earned a m.b.a. at the university of pittsburgh, and has a law degree from dickenson law school. in 1990 at the age 32, our guest ran for the u.s. house, defeat an incumbent who outspent him almost 3-1. in 1994 at age 36, he beat another incumbent for u.s. senate seat and won a second term before being defeated in 2006. he's currently making his second run for the white house having been the last conservative challenger standing against mitt romney in 2012. the senator and his wife are the parents of seven children. thus ends the biographical portion of the program. now on to the ever so compelling recitation of ground rules. as always we are on the record here. pleas no live blogging or tweeting. in short no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway to give us time to listen to what our guest says. there is no embargo when the

session ends. to help you curve that selfie urge, we'll email several pictures of the session to all reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends. and as regular attendees know, if you like to ask a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal and i'll call on as many reporters we can in the time we have with the senator this morning. we'll start off by offering our guest the opportunity to make some opening comments and then questions around the table. with that thanks again for doing this, sir. appreciate it. senator santorum: thank you-all for coming this morning. appreciate it. look forward to your questions, actually not. i'll do my best. i would just say that i think this is as someone who ran four years ago, this is a very different election. for me one that's a much more satisfying election as a candidate because this is an election, at least from my perspective, the republican

primary, four years ago the election was about who was the conservative alternative to mitt romney. the entire justification as a candidate was establishing yourself as a foil for what seemed to be the establishment pick for the nomination. this is a race that's obviously a wide open race. it's a real opportunity to go out and talk about the important things that confront this country, important issues that confront this country and why -- what your vision is and why you believe you're the best person to be able to tackle the problems that america's facing right now. so, in that respect it's a more interesting race for me as a candidate because it's a race about issues, it's a race not about who your opponent is. i think if you look at most of my comments, it's certainly in the last few months, i don't

talk about my -- other folks in the race. to me it's not relevant. there are so many faces out there that paying any attention to any one is -- isn't necessarily important from the standpoint of the success. i don't think it's relevant. what the voters are trying to figure out right now is who is on my list. i don't think they are looking for any help from the candidates in trying to take people off their list. i think they are looking to see what candidates are potential viable presidential candidates going forward. i look at that as a real opportunity to make the case as to why we are -- we are the candidate that is -- has the

right solutions for the country right now and has the best possibility of success in the general leaks. -- election. that's really the focal point of our campaign so far and will continue to be. that's exciting for me because it's about how we can help the country, what we can do to make things better for -- to the people who are struggling in this country, and why winning is not as important as winning something that's worth winning. it's not just about winning the election. it's actually winning for this country in a way that we haven't seen, in my opinion, in several elections. i'm excited about the message we are delivering. that's why i announced from a factory floor in western pennsylvania. i believe that message. looking at the people in america today who are not succeeding. looking at the middle of this country that needs to be filled

with policies and values that are going to make america a much more top to bottom successful country going forward. i think we have some very unique ideas in that regard that separate us from the pack. that's when i travel around the country we do a lot of manufacturing events. we'll be in identify way probably 19 out of the next 33 days we'll be in iowa. we'll be doing a manufacturing event almost every single day we are there because that to me is one of the real big keys of help making america stronger from top to bottom. making things and creating the jobs and opportunities that are available to people who are not succeeding through a resurgence in that sector of the economy. on the other side, we have the national security which has become really important issue in this election which was not at

all important four years ago. again we believe that our message is different. we have experience that nobody else in the field has. an a track record that certainly distinguishes ourself from hillary clinton, but the experience to go up against a hillary clinton. that's an important part of this race is how -- what are you going to do for america? but also how you juxtapose that with the likely democratic nominee. i think a lot of fronts we match up very well because we have matched up well in the past. i think i'm the only person in the field that has any real experience having gone toe to toe with the clinton machine and hillary clinton specifically when i was in the united states senate. i think that -- if experience matters, i think there's a lot of folks who believe now experience is more important than it once thought it was, that recommends me to the

electorate as time goes on. i'll be happy to stop there. mr. cook: one or two and move around the table. let me ask you about fundraising. as you know jeb bush has raised an enormous amount of money, $114 million. and the estimates are that cruz raised and allies raised $51 and rubio $45 million. cruz's folks say that you don't need to be the most well funded but that you need to have the money to go up against jeb bush. conservative does not need to raise the most amount of money to beat an establishment candidate. we are a raw funded conservative candidate and the only one. can you give us an update on what your -- what you have raised and your folks have raised and what your response is to the argument from folks like cruz's staff that you need to be

the best funded conservative to really have a place at the table? senator santorum: look at it this way. four years ago, four years ago we raised less than $2 million. and we started raising money april 1 of 2011. we raised less than $2 million heading into iowa. and we won the iowa caucuses. after that point we raised about $20 million. i think if you go back and look at how -- campaign itself, how fundraising was going, we were at times outraising romney. it was towards the end of the campaign romney was laying off staff because they were not -- in some respects keeping up with us with the fundraising pace we had. i would make the argument that money is important, but what's money for? money is to get you votes.

so the most important thing is how effective are you in getting votes that you need to be able to win the election? and clearly four years ago we ran a race with being outspent four and five to one and still were able -- primarily four and five to one because of the super p.a.c. situation. i don't think this time around you're going to see that same type of dynamic. four years ago we had an establishment candidate that everyone backed and including the vast majority of super p.a.c. donors. i just don't think that there is that candidate this time. i understand that jeb bush has raised a lot of money, but there's a lot of other money out there on the sidelines that i think is willing and able and will support a conservative candidate as that conservative candidate emerges in february and march of next year.

i think the question is, how much money do you need to win iowa and be competitive after that? and my opinion, it's not new the money being talked about. mr. cook: you didn't give us a number. do you want to give us a number? senator santorum: we'll report the number at the appropriate time. mr. cook: trying. let me ask you one other, fox news has said to be on stage at their debate in cleveland you have to place in the top 10, as you know. the average five most recent national polls as conducted by major nationally recognized organizations, an analysis by the cnn polling director recently released has you 11th. it -- how damaging is that to your bid to overtake the other conservatives in the field who are likely to be there? ben carson, mike huckabee, ted cruz. what's the strategy to get you on the stage?

senator santorum: i don't pay a whole lot of attention to things that go on this far ahead of a an actual vote. go back four years ago and we finished fourth in the iowa straw poll. most people would have thought that was not a particularly good thing to happen. it turned out not to be particularly relevant at all. so a lot of things have happened six, seven months before an election sound big at the time but in the interim don't turn out to be very consequential. i think there are pluses and minuses of the way that the fox has set up their debate and cnn has set up their debate. we'll participate in whatever their black box -- black box way of determining what polls at what point in time. i think -- i have been very, very vocal about this. i think staff and national media

plays such a -- an important role early in a primary to determine who the top tier are and who is not it's undermining the advantage, if i was an r.n.c. chairman, it's undermining the process that was established by the r.n.c. to let the states and voters make that call as opposed to the national media. particularly using a yardstick that historically has had no relationship to who the actual winner of any of these primaries are going to be which is months before the election, 1% or 2% national polls two weeks before the iowa caucuses, i was at 4%. i won the iowa caucuses. so given that benchmark, i wouldn't have been included in they were going to eliminate 2/3 of the people in the debate prior to the iowa caucuses, i wouldn't have been included.

yet i was on the way to winning the caucuses. to me it's a miscarriage of -- by r.n.c. to agree to something like that. having said that, we'll play by the rules. i don't think our game plan hasn't changed much. we are probably going to do a little bit more television radio this month than we otherwise would have, but i think i just told you, i'll going to spend 20 of the next -- 19 of the next 33 days in iowa. my game plan hasn't changed much. we are going to continue to work and make sure we win the iowa caucuses. one of the things do i know from four years ago, the people in identify way don't pay attention what guess on here in washington, d.c., they decide for themselves who they pick as president. mr. cook: way in the back from cbs. first question. [inaudible]

senator santorum: he's the democratic party. he's the base. he's the heart left. -- hard left. hillary clinton is moving to the hard left that's who the democratic party has become and their activists and downers. they are the party of the left. it's not a far cry to say the party to the left would be very welcoming of someone who is a self-identified socialist. mr. cook: next to "the washington post." >> national security which is an area you have -- economic inequality. you're still talking about issues like abortion. do you worry about alienating new people that you might need in the general election? senator santorum: i'm a

conservative across the board who speaks on all the issues national security to economic to moral and cultural issues. i don't see them as indistinguishable. they fall together. if you don't have a strong family structure in america, i have said this many times, as the american family breaks down, the ability for limited government becomes less and best possible. -- less possible. when the government has to fill in for the problems that come with the breakdown of the family and in those communities, then the ideal of the -- of economic conservatives in the republican party that want to talk about these or even members of the public, why do i need to focus on, if you look at every study that's been done by the left and right, i always talk on the campaign trail, i talk about the two books on the campaign trail, "coming apart."

and one called "our kids" read both our books. the principle problem, and every study done on income economy the principle reason income equality is as intractable problem as it is today is first and foremost the breakdown of the nuclear family. so you can say, well, you still talk about those things. i talk about those things because they are relevant to the debate on how we get our vibrant middle of america, and how we create better opportunities for children to be successful. so i think they are important -- it's important to understand that none of these things are sort of issues unto themselves but they interrelate. national security, if we don't have a vibrant middle of america, the desire of america to engage in the world is -- you saw the story in the recession

you saw republicans pulling back saying we don't -- we can't afford to do this anymore. we have to cut the military. that became a very -- even within the republican party. why? because people were really hurting. when people are hurting at home, the last thing they want to do we need to be going off and doing these things arne the world. all of these things interrelate. to me the foundational element is make sure we have strong families. we have strong families that are together and raising children. i think it was said it's more important for parents to read to their children the first four years of life than to pay for four years of college. i don't think that message is out there. that the message from either party about how important these -- this public policy issue is of reknitting the american family. mr. cook: nicole from "roll call." [inaudible]

senator santorum: obviously i talk about the importance of targeting voters who have been left behind by this economy in the last 10 years. so i announced that on the factory floor. you look wages have been stagnant. you look at medium income has -- look at median income has declined in the last seven years. party that have is the recession but it hasn't recovered. and you see this stagnation that has really made this a much more important issue that i think republicans are -- have been and continue, many not all, many continue to ignore at our peril. so i think this idea of laying out a vision for how pro-growth

economics can translate into improved job opportunities for the 74% of americans age 25 to 65 who don't have a college degree and we are going to provide a pathway for a more stable optimistic future for them, that's a -- that is a -- an issue that was not as clearly as important 10 years ago as it is today. and going forward. the prospects don't look a whole lot brighter. so i think the focus on that for me is nothing new. if you look at my track record when i was in the senate, we were very -- always interested in these issues, but it now becomes more front and center. obviously the cultural issues i talked about, big changes in the culture in the last 10 years but to me it's just a continuation of what we have seen for the past 30 years.

we have seen a continual break down of the understanding of marriage and family, and it didn't start with the current marriage debate. it started a long time ago. it started 40, 50 years ago. we have seen the impact of that with ever increasing out-of-wedlock birth rates. ever increasing absentee fathers. ever increasing levels of poverty. as you read the book, it's pretty jarring when you read that book is to see that the changes in communities and opportunities are available for young people growing up in broken families and poor communities. there just isn't the network of support there. so all of those things are big cultural shifts that require the republican party to begin to address them. i think we are stuck. i think the republican party is stuck. i wrote this book many of you know last year called "blue collar conservative." one of the chapters in the book is a chapter saying a rising tide lifts all boats.

unless your boat has a hole in it. i think republicans still use the rising tide lifts all boats, which is a john f. kennedy line, nevertheless we use that line all the time and we don't recognize there are a lot of people say, the tide has risen. i'm in deeper water and i'll bailing faster, and i feel like i'm sinking as the tide is going up. we have to have specific policies oriented toward how we are going to help those who are sinking. and we don't. we talk -- we still talk in macroeconomic terms. we still are unwilling to carve out public policy that addresses particular microeconomic categories or people. because that's -- that's tinkering with the -- it's not purist. i would just make the argument that that's a losing strategy on economics.

and there are -- from my perspective, if we are going to win this election and if we are going to create a win for the american public who are hurting, we have to have a different message than what we have been saying for the past 20 years. mr. cook: we are going next to john of the b.b.c. and herb jackson, jonathan easily, todd dana, and miles. [inaudible] senator santorum: i welcome the spotlight. the manner which he's done it is donald trump not rick santorum. there will be a differentiation between the way we talk about this issue and the substance of what we talk about, because i saw donald over the weekend talking about how he wants more and easier legal immigration. he wants more people coming in and make it easier for people to come in. i have been very different approach to that. while i think it's important he's focused the issue of immigration which i do believe is important.

particularly for the workers i have been talking about. i said in my announcement, we have seen 35 million people come to this country in the last 20 years. that's over 10% of the population of this country have come to this country combined legal and illegal to live here. we have more people living in this country who weren't born here than any time in the history of our country. we are approaching the highest percentage of folks not born in this country living here. that can all be good. that's not necessarily -- it's not necessarily bad, let me put it that way. but we have to analyze what the impact is on the very people i was talking about. what's the impact on those struggling the most in america? and to do that is not xenophobic, it's simply a rational policy discussion we should be able to have in this country without being called various names that are not

particularly appetizing in the public. i always refer back to the last immigration commission that was constituted under president clinton run by barbara jordan. she said immigration policy is first and foremost in the national interest. we need to have a discussion of what's in the national interest. i think certainly a part of that is how american workers are doing under this system. i make the argument when you look at flatline wages now for those 74% of american workers who don't have a college degree, you look at what their wages have been, look at their incomes over the last 20 years during this period of record, record immigration, not even close to any 20-year period, that includes the great wave. so i think it's rational and responsible for public policy discussion as to what the impact is on the people who are most affected. and i would make the argument

that the people most affected are those workers that i talked about and they are not doing well under this. we have an obligation to take a step back and say what is the -- in the best interest of the american workers, by the way both native born and those who came to this country legally over the last 20 years and before that, and see what we -- policy going forward will address those issues. that's why i've suggested not just what most republicans talk about, which is border security and tracking our visa overstays and talking about e-verify and the importance of using e-verify and find folks who are here illegally, but what we are going to do about legal immigration, particularly the large amount of unskilled labor that we are bringing into this country legally to compete. i use this number, again, age 25 to 65, you look at since 2000 there have been about 6 1/2 million net new jobs created in

this country. what percentage of those net new jobs are held by people who are in this country who were not born in this country? the answer is all of them. there are fewer native born americans working today than there was in the year 2000. and there's 17 million more native americans in the work force. and so you can make the argument that, immigration is a good thing for america, but if you look at stagnant wages, if you look at the fact that immigrants primarily are taking all the net new jobs and what the impact is on those wages and benefits, i think it's pretty clear what's happening. so to suggest as i have that we have to make some changes to that, i think it's simply a topic that needs to be front and center and talked about, and i think most americans would like to have this conversation without being made to feel by many that they're somehow anti-immigrants.

i don't think you're anti-immigrant if you, as i have suggested, still are after the proposal that i have laid out there, and i did a couple months ago, called for a 25% reduction in legal immigrants in this country, we'd still be at the highest level we have been at prior to this 20-year period. mr. cook: herb jackson at the end. >> senator, i have a transportation question. the tunnel amtrak uses under the hudson river is more than 100 years old. juan 20 years it's going to fail they say because of damage from hurricane sandy. the existing car tunnels and bridges are at capacity. that's going to have a major impact in the northeast. congress so far not addressed. if you were president would you support building a new tunnel? senator santorum: i have taken the approach on transportation that the federal government should do less not more on transportation.

in fact i'm supported -- i supported proposal that would dramatically reduce the gas tax and put the federal government back in the position of simply doing what we should be doing, which is dealing with interstate commerce and movement of, which of course includes movement of people, from an interstate capacity. doesn't necessarily mean just interstates class definition, it could be u.s. highways and other major interstate movers of goods and people. and that we reduce the gas tax to the level that can maintain and in fact improve that system. and then cap the tax at that amount and send the rest back to basically cut it and let the states deal with all these other issues that are more local in nature. we have not traditionally, obviously, with passenger trains, we have supported amtrak very generously over the years.

as you know the federal government has traditionally not gotten involved with rail construction. certainly freight rail construction we have stayed away from. we have done some passenger rail construction. so i guess my gut reaction would be that's not -- that getting involved with a project like that would be one of those gray areas that i would look at because it is interstate movement, but it would have a high bar in order to cross to do that kind of project. mr. cook: jonathan from "the hill." >> senator, you said at the outset this has been in some ways a more satisfying campaign for you. is it also frustrating you at all? it doesn't appear a lot of the base you had in 2012 has transferred over in support in 2016. is it frustrating to be in some ways starting from scratch? senator santorum: i remind

everybody that prior to the iowa caucuses we were at 2% or 4%. a lot of support we got came late. and it was after looking at all the candidates they made the decision. that's one of the things -- i certainly know about iowans as we call around and we are talking to our supporters. we are getting a fair number of them to say, yeah. they are still with us. which is pretty encouraging. but a lot of them are saying you know what, we really like you, but, as i have said -- there's a lot of new models on the show room. we are taking a look at everybody. i'm not surprised at all. there are a lot of new models. there are a lot, as i said public, a lot of good people out there that people are going to take a look at. i have always felt confident that four years ago i felt this way when i was starting from scratch. i feel very much the same way this time in spite of all the new models.

i think this model is a good reliable model that people will come back to and say you know what, all that glitters is not gold. and i'm using the example of donald trump. trump's the best guy on immigration. then you read, he may be tough on the border, but on a lot of other immigration issues he's not very good -- not considered a conservative on those things. that just takes time and my -- one of my concerns and i complained about this at the time, didn't complain, commented, the lack of debates means that really most americans have -- most primary voters have no idea where most candidates stand on the issues. they don't. it's all just -- i always wish these national surveys would start without saying who you're going to vote for and list the candidates, who are you going to vote for?

and just -- can you name all the candidates running for president? i guarantee you that most people couldn't name more than two or three candidates. and so it's just -- all these questions are not relevant. because it is so early and people aren't paying that much attention clearly in iowa, what i do know, they make their decision the last month or so. not to say they won't be for someone today, but as i find out just because they are for someone today doesn't mean they'll vote for someone later on. i'd rather not be their favorite now. i would rather be their favorite when it matters. mr. cook: bloomberg. >> two-part question. going back to september of 2005 when you were in the senate, knowing everything you know, would you still confirm john roberts? where are you on the constitutional amendment following the decision on same-sex marriage? should it define marriage as a man and woman on a federal level or let the states do it? senator santorum: knowing what i

know now would i confirm john roberts? look, i confirmed john roberts because he was - he had a good strong track record of someone who paid attention to what the constitution said and followed it. everyone's entitled to a mistake every now and then and he's made one mistake twice. and that's disappointing, but he's also written a lot of really good and strong opinions. i wish i could say that every -- everybody i ever voted for on anything not just judges but for elections didn't disappoint me at some point in time, but that's just not the world. by and large he's been a solid supreme court justice. looking at the best case scenario of his opinions, the opinion was one that was deferential to the congress which even though i'm running

for president, i like presidents and courts that defer to congress because that's the body that our constitution wanted to rest most of the power in washington, d.c. on. i'm not happy with the decision. looking at it sort of the other way, i can get myself to not be as upset about it as i might be. as far as a constitutional amendment, i co-authored and pushed for the vote on that amendment way back in 2004. i believe we need a national standard for marriage. i don't think you can have a standard one state to another what marriage is. so i would continue to support an effort to redefine -- define marriage the way it was defined for 4,000 years of human history. >> that sets you apart from governor cruz and governor

walker? senator santorum: i think that's a mistake. i argued that 10 years ago when others wanted to do that 10 years ago. you can't have a hodgepodge of marriage. the reason -- one of the reasons the court decided the way decided because they recognize you can't have different marriage laws in different states. it just chris too much confusion out there for -- on a variety of different levels. mr. cook: todd gilman from "dallas morning news." >> there are those on the other side of the cusp. do you see any evidence of anything -- if [inaudible] senator santorum: i'm going to do media appearances. i don't spend money this far out in the campaign. >> do you see evidence that anyone in the field is gaming

the system to try to get into the top 10? is there any way to juice your numbers? senator santorum: the people who set the game up have the biggest influence on who gets in because it's going to who they put on the network and give air time. they control in some respects the ability to put their thumb on the scale to give someone -- not that we're doing it. i am certainly not a media -- don't watch a lot of television. i have no idea who -- what they are doing. but they certainly have the ability to do that but -- if they decided, for example, they wanted rick santorum to be in the debates, it would be helpful to them for some reason to have -- they could say we are going to put santorum on every single day and have our anchors talk about this guy, stories. the point is they can. i'm not saying they are or will. but they certainly can have an

impact because what's driving national numbers is? it's news coverage. that's what drives national numbers. if you folks had written as many stories about jeb bush as you did lindsey graham, i guess jeb bush's numbers wouldn't be where they are today. >> is it a death spiral. if you don't make the debate you or anybody else, you're probably not going to make the next debate or next one after that? senator santorum: here's what i found. go back and look at -- look at every election cycle. people go up, people go down. that debate to be a very interesting time. and could prove to be a wonderful opportunity for some and as we saw in the past it

could be a disaster for others. it could shoot their campaign right between the eyes. and so you just -- the idea that being in the debate or not there were debates i wasn't in last time. and it had it had absolutely no impact on the campaign. i think something this early on with all the things that are going to happen between now and caucus day i just don't think it's going to be that important. mr. cook: dana milbank from the "post." >> the trump effect. you got this widely fragmented field and it appears in order to break out you got to say something outrageous. and you're here very nicely talking about robert putnam which is terrific. but it's not outrageous.

do you think you can do basically what you did last time, sort of plodding along? are the rules going to be fundamentally different this time and it's going to be all about money and all about being provocative to get the media attention? can you be plotting and get to the finish line? senator santorum: i hope so. that's -- we haven't really changed how -- who i am as candidate and what i believe in. and i don't think iowa has changed. i know everybody likes to look at all the things going on in the national media. but in the end, iowa's going to cut this field down dramatically much more than whether you attend the debate or not. if you can go there and connect as we did in the past, and be successful, we are going to be one of a handful of guys or gals i should say who are going to be the nominee of the republican party. i would say i'm the tortoise and the hare. slow and steady wins the race.

we are not going to -- i don't see any real opportunities for us over the next six months to break out. i didn't see it six years ago we were going to break out. what i believe in is that when people get down to the serious business of judging who they want to be their president, not who they are enjoying for the moment, not who gets them excited and gets them to cheer for something that they feel frustrated that no one's speaking for them, but in the end who they want to sit beyond the resolute desk, i think it's a different calculation. we went through 20 debates, 18 debates, you think of a memorable line that rick santorum said? no. that's not -- i give good solid answers that are knowledgeable that show a clear vision for what i want to accomplish. and what's best for this country. and on a variety of different topics and eventually people came around and said i think that guy can be president.

and it coalesced. we had a lot of really wonderful people you may say there are just better fecks out there. they are stronger. that may be the case. but one of the things i learned is you don't know that this far out. what i do know is that we passed that test before and i think we can pass that test again. mr. cook: miles. >> you began this session talking about income inequality and your belief that -- what you read about it being primarily caused by a break down in the family. senator santorum: i said that's what the studies have shown the principal reason. there are others. education, problems with education. mentioned the manufacturing sector of the economy has been dramatically reduced in this

country and therefore opportunities for a lot of noncollege educated people to get good-paying jobs and rise has been compromised. there's a lot of factors. that is certainly one of them. >> is a conservative view of limited government, can government do anything about re-establishing the american family? and income equality? or are those things not the business of the government? senator santorum: i would say the answer is yes and no. when i say yes and no, there are things that the political system and public policy can do to effect the family. on a policy side, i use the example of when i was campaigning in wisconsin four years ago now congressman grossman shared with me a study when he was state senator showed that if you are a single mother with two kids, and you're making

$15,000 a year in the state of wisconsin, you are eligible for $38,500 in welfare medicines. if you got married you would lose those benefits. and so what the government had done all with the intent of trying to help people, was create a barrier for marriage among lower income single moms. and that's why you see for the first time in the history of our country a majority of kids will be raised at homes without a father in the home at some point in time. number two, majority of kids born in america out of wedlock are born with fathers living in the home but not married. there are several reasons for that. one the marriage debate i would make the argument has now separated the idea of children for marriage. marriage is no longer about children. i think that's part of it. part of it is because of government programs that particularly for low income individuals.

government programs make it economically not viable to get married because you have to be making $50,000 to $60,000 a year which is above median income in america, that person you're going to marry, to net $38,000 in basically tax-free benefits. the government has done things all with the intent -- i don't describe ill intent. with the intent of trying to help. what they have done is create a barrier to marriage in america among lower income individuals. that's number one. we have to look at public policy changes to stop that disincentive. it's damaging for mothers and children in particular. that's one idea of public policy. let me shift over to what is another important area which is the power of the government to -- the bully pulpit. using the power of the presidency or the government to

convene a discussion and movement to try to do something in america about this problem. the president uses his bully pulpit power for many things but no more than climate change. he's constantly out there -- we passed a bill on climate change. no. but if things happen in this country over the last six years on climate change. yes. why? because the president has been out there talking to the business community and the churches and our schools and all of these institutions out there that have a huge impact on what goes on in america. the president has driven this issue so they have taken up this cause. and implemented and done things to promote this idea. imagine a president who said the most important issue right now is restoring the nuclear family in america. is what can we do in your business to help? i was at a business in tennessee, the reason i mention

chattanooga is that is in my book 10 years called "it takes a family" i wrote about chattanooga and a program there called first things first. it's the first time a community at large came together because they had very high rates of divorce, out-of-wedlock birth, single motherhood, etc., so they decided as a community to do something about it. government didn't pass the law. but the churches and schools and businesses and the civic and community organizations came together in this group called first things first, and implemented a variety of different things to try to get the community to bring families together. i was at a business there a couple months ago and i just said, just curious, because. you're in chattanooga. i said, do you do anything for your families? and i didn't have to explain what he said.

what do you do? for example, everybody we have in our company, we give them a free dave ramsey course so they can -- we give one of our benefits is marriage counseling. so they went through all these things they do to support the nuclear family in chattanooga. why? because they made a conscious effort that the schools now talk about marriage and the importance of marriage and what marriage is and why it's important to be married, to have children. i would suspect most schools in america don't do that, right? they talk about the importance of fathers. they talk about, in fact condoms but they don't talk about what it's about to be a responsible father and a responsible family. all those things can be done without any government programs because if we identify and, you know, dana's talking about the putnam book. i don't know how many read the putnam book. when you read that book you can't walk away and say, we can continue this in america. you can't. there's no effort on the part of the federal government. nothing by this president. nothing.