's attitude may be different from that. predecessors. adam: there is a lot of discussion of the difference upholding earlier decisions and the statutory context where congress is available to come back and change the decision. there is a lot of talk of that. suggests on the usual metrics of activism, is this a court that overturns earlier decisions, is this a court that strikes down laws? it is in keeping with earlier courts. when it does do those things it does them in a conservative direction. ?iguel: you think same-sex marriage, juvenile kennedy isty, where

voting opposite cases he joined in the 80's, where the people are left of the court? those are exceptions to prove the rule. nicole: there have been high profile cases like voting rights, they are big decisions. we have not talk about campaign finance. it has been huge. if you told me 10 years ago a corporation is a person and has exercise of religion rights and speech rights i would have been surprised by that. the second amendment rights. miguel: i thought you were going to say corporations -- [inaudible] adam: just you wait. kannon: let's start with the first. the bill of rights for the first amendment. is that an area in which the changes in the court's

membership have made a difference. miguel: speech or religion? kannon: let's start with speech. to al: the court almost person is a pro-speech court in the rhine quest court was -- rehnquist court was. with was a case dealing sign ordinances in arizona. about -- theng was ninth circuit upheld it. it said if you have any articles to sign you can have this. they have decided that was not [inaudible] saying whytice kagan do we have this case? scrutiny.t pass

cases whereot more you see everybody in the court going you clearly can't do this. i don't think you have that in the rehnquist court. and as skeptical about speech rights as any member of the court. that person is justice breyer. case is very bold. it makes the point that i think is new that if something is content-based it triggers strict scrutiny. astice tomas cited pharmaceutical case. it may be part of the agenda to make sure that all speech

restrictions in a commercial setting are subject to scrutiny. on the other side of that expansion of scrutiny is the only 2 decisions that i know upholding laws challenge under strict scrutiny come from the robbers court. humanitarian law project. we have a simultaneously broadening of strict scrutiny and a cheapening of its bite. want to raise the question of the standards of review and approach of the roberts court. has there been an erosion of the importance of standards of review? nicole: that may be right. even thinking outside the first amendment context, i do criminal cases. the court is very confident it can look at something and decide

right or wrong, reasonable or not reasonable. if it needs to explain that it can do that but for a lot of it it is the court just looking at it and what makes sense and making their own decision. thing, it is the thing that is interesting to me, it is not just that they are pro-first amendment, in context where you could see them going the other way. .ome distasteful speech stevens print a dogfighting case. you have people protesting military funerals. that is not a nice thing to do. .ou have the stolen valor act people who were impersonating they had purple hearts. half of congress. [laughter] nicole: in the 1980's you have the flag burning case. this is a hard speech to

protect, a tough thing to watch someone do. tos, what value does it have make an animal crush video, or a dogfighting video, people who have served in the armed forces? with the exception of the lido. he was offended by both of them and he was the lone vote on both of them. kannon: what about the court's approach in criminal cases? they are more friendly to criminal defendants. nicole: there were some things happening in the criminal law before the chief justice took over with the trendy line of cases. the cases, the fact that increase the punishment beyond the statutory maximum need to be proven beyond a doubt.

the sentencing guidelines were invalidated. that was a huge deal to have sentencing guidelines be discretionary. school we in law learned ohio versus roberts about the confrontation clause. you have reliability for out-of-court statements and improve them in court. couldears, a they determine which statements were good and which statements were bad. crawford put that out the door and now we did not know what out of court statements could come in. problems with 911 calls, or lab statements,, whether they need to testify. i don't know how much is attributable to the roberts court. miguel: scalia mostly.

one of the things that has happened in crawford, his colleagues have scared him down. he is not happy about it. he was the one pushing those for criminal defendants. in some ways, justice sotomayor has dialed back. it is getting back to the ohio versus roberts paradigm. you had cases involving child abuse where the opinion of the court started out by talking favorability about ohio versus roberts. bring himselfot to even name justice alito in his opinion. the author of today's opinion. he was angry about it. the furious conqueror and.

-- concurrence. kannon: let's hold off on questions. e coverto make sure w the entirety of this topic. the government has a hard time whenever it is dealing with the construction of a criminal statute. cases seem to be going to the defendant these days. the court struggles with two things. it hates criminals and hates the government. sometimes the government looks less empathetic. nicole: there have been cases in recent years, there have been vocal members of the court who are unhappy with government overreaching. .ond was one of those cases a lady whose husband cheated and she worked at a chemical factory. she tried to poison a lady. kannon: she smeared this chemical. on a mailbox.

you did not have to prosecute her for a violation of the chemical warfare treaty, which set off the court. [laughter] her forrosecuted tampering with a mailbox the case would not have made it to the supreme court twice and you would have gotten one out of 18 votes. was 18-0. i'm glad you have had your caffeine. [laughter] kannon: you may have had fewer prosecutorial options. of course we are using you, the government. those have gotten a lot of press that there are criminal cases and other cases the government wins. statutory cases are harder because those are ones in which someone prosecuted something that the court did not think fell into the statute.

the government is doing pretty well, maryland versus king, about collection of dna samples. i do dimly recall that case. [laughter] [indiscernible] kannon: thank you adam. the fourth amendment cases are interesting. these are cases where the court as a whole is struggling with the question of how do we apply fourth amendment thnologies. nicole: that stuff is interesting. it started with jones, the gps case. the court had had president that if you are in public and putting stuff in public, your trash, and the police are looking at what you are doing there is nothing wrong with that. what if the police had a gps and

could track everywhere you went and they tracked you for a month, was that a problem? and the court said yes. it is not surprising the court said yes. ,here was a question asked could you put a gps on one of our cars and track as for a month? kannon: without a warrant. nicole: she did not immediately answer yes. she said a justice of this court? who would do such a thing that it was unprecedented. the implication was yes. then maryland versus king, a technology case in which the government one and then swum back the other way with the cell phone cases. looking at the data on a cell phone is asking a lot in the court. these are not cases that breakdown in traditional ideological ways. nicole: a lot of it breaks.

it breaks down based on what the justices think may happen to them. if they think it could happen to them, as ordinary citizens, that is a problem. things that happened to people who are arrested, like the folks in maryland versus king have been arrested, or put in jail and there was a question of whether they could be strip-searched. a justice isn't going to be arrested but it was a case of a car stop lasting too long. what if they were in their cars and someone stop them and they had to wait? article,here was some very funny and entertaining. there was some case in 2005 where there was somebody who was supplying cocaine and flush it down the toilet. the question of whether the cops

waited too long or too short to going to the apartment to bustin. this could happen to you argument. she had this line, saying this could happen to you, rarely works of the supreme court mostly because justices so rarely stock large amounts of cocaine in their own bathroom. so rarely was the key phrase. with these other cases. gps case, cell phone. they all have a cell phone. you can do that to me. that is a different feeling. it is them standing in for an ordinary law-abiding citizen. miguel: a reasonable expectation of privacy. cases, the dog sniff there were cases a few years back out of florida, one was about the reliability of drug

sniffing dogs. could you come back later and try to have a mini hearing about what was the dog's track record, this whole question. question,a separate if a police officer was coming to your front door and you had a dog with him and it alerted, is there fourth amendment problem with that. the dogs are reliable, and that makes sense because they rely on dogs. we all do in the government. -- i mean they do an amazing amount as i have learned . the court was not happy with the idea of a dog sniffing at someone's front door and pray that is not something a reasonable person would expect. the prior case law favor the other view. they can comfortable make their own decision that was not a reasonable thing. brings up another

subject, the court attitude towards the government more generally. to are the obvious person ask about this as our representative of the government. you have talked about skepticism , do you think there is a greater degree of distrust of the government generally, of cases? has that change with the roberts court? nicole: i don't think that is true. the court calls for the use of the solicitor general a lot. the court has high expectations of us. if there is a 50 state survey that may be relevant they expect us to have done it. the ascus those russians and oral arguments. the justices are happy with those answers. you read decisions where the government made prevails and the decision reads like the government.

there have been a few cases in which some member of the court, may be a few, thought there was prosecutorial overreaching, like the fish case, the bond chemical weapons case, various members of the court were upset about. kannon: the win loss record has gone down some. is that attributable to changes in administration? miguel: probably not. what the court gets is a ramble -- random sample. they was a big win for liberal and prayed -- liberal end. you get a little snapshot of what the docket brings and you make a conclusion waste on what is a random assortment of cases. you can't draw any conclusion. nicole is right.

i was in the office in the 1990's. ic years it was my job would get angry. i am not a lawyer for the clinton administration. i had to go there and argue the position of the clinton administration. the rehnquist court was equally skeptical. kannon: you watch a lot of oral arguments. do you have observations on the federal government? adam: there are cases in which the sg's office probably partly as a consequence of the high quality of their work and how much the court leans on them. if the are aspects of the argument, unavoidable aspects, that displeased roberts in particular, the chief is likely

to make a point to make it [indiscernible] nicole: this is attributable to justice's style. he is gentle and oral argument. maybe he will give you extra time. if there is an advocate who was not getting it, he will not give that person a past that help move the argument along so that it is not a painful situation. the flip side, when he thinks he has people out there who do get it and are prepared and can take it, he gives it to them. that does not always work in our favor. kannon: one other aspect, the issue of deference to the government when it is interpreting statutes, the chevron deference. hope everyone is fully caffeinated and we talk about the role of chevron in this

court. is the court moving on that issue, away from full-fledged deference? nicole: i don't know i can say there is a trend but there are cases i have argued in which i thought we had a good claim of chevron deference. we had a good argument that the statute meant what we think it meant. we had agency decisions, good, reasoned the citizens that one would think would be entitled to chevron deference. good chevron deference cases. the court have the option, doesn't want to go the statutory route. in the cases i am thinking of, we prevailed. the statute means what the government says but they were interested in the chevron deference. i have been thinking about that. should i think of that as a problem we are doing something wrong? a lot of it is exhibited to the confidence to resolve cases.

the court says we are looking at this statute, we can look at the text, we can figure it out. we don't need your deference. it is not that you are wrong. >> king versus burwell. the chief justice seemed interested in the possibility of deferencee irs but he wrote an opinion that disparage the idea of deference. adam: he said this is too big a deal for the irs to decide. it is for the supreme court to decide. nicole: we have that case where there was not a huge deference the fcc issuedut decisions along these lines, i don't think the court mentioned it in its opinion. we are not interested. adam: that is true. kannon: i want to make sure we have questions from the

audience. we have questions we have received over the internet. the last 15 minutes or so, let's talk about where the roberts court is now and where the roberts court is going. we've had 10 years of the roberts court. what you guys think is the most significant decisions? citizens united, and marriage. miguel: you were clearly ready for that one. i think juvenile death penalty. the juvenile death penalty and the rulings on whether you can execute somebody who may not be retarded, but is challenged. adam: and cutting back on the death penalty in cases not involving murder, cutting back on juvenile life without parole.

the court has narrowed harsh punishments across a number of dimensions. what is the significance of the first affordable care act decision? miguel: none i would imagine. adam: except for the medicaid expansion of it. miguel: and is a ruling of the average adult. [indiscernible] the interesting thing about the big decisions about citizens united is not because of what the court held add a sense ofter, but some public outrage about the decision and public engagement and interest. i don't know how many people know this. the court has had over the past few years public protests in the core about citizens united. a couple of groups were people are standing up making comments about we want to take the country back, we are unhappy

about citizens united. i can't think of any other issue. there was a lone person the gay marriage case where someone did that. that is not cool at court. i don't know what the old court would have done? this penem rot in camera. citizens united is interesting because there has been reaction that is almost like the reaction other casesus gore that have gotten people up in arms and concerned about the legitimacy of the court. miguel: all of that is a function of the coverage. think people't read the underlying decisions? kannon: are you blaming adam? miguel: i am blaming his editorial. they're all of these things that s.t turned into cause célèbre'

[indiscernible] -- when you have that politicization by the president of a decision you shouldn't be shocked people who are his followers and to agree philosophically with him think this is a big deal. decision has the been blamed for a lot of stuff that they cannot be blamed for but it does seem salient. justice ginsburg was asked about the most disappointing thing the court did in her 22 years. you may have thought bush the gore. she said citizens united. it is a shorthand, undeserved shorthand for the way money in elections in general is unsatisfying to many people, and

people like to blame citizens united first many things that it cannot be blamed for. if there is a problem in our elections that may be the blame to it. united endorsed the disclosure claims. if there is not enough disclosure it is not citizens united's a fall. kannon: do you think she cited forth but of back and how broadly the court was going to write that opinion? adam: i'm sure she was not crazy about what happened there. i think she cited it because it is a way to speak to an audience. you say citizens united and the left side of the audiences head explodes. kannon: let me throw the floor open for the remainder of our time. thee had 10 years of

roberts court. what do the next 10 years look like? nicole: justice kagan and what role she will play. she is talented. i worked for her when she was solicitor general. it is shocking how quickly she gets issues. there are some arcane immigration things, false claims act, something like that. you explain the issue and she gets it so quickly. her questions are so good. when you look at the first five years she has been there and the decisions she has written and how she has performed, she started out measured. i'm going to get my bearings and asked some good questions and look around. i'm going to see what is going on. she has not made a strong stand in a lot of places like justice sotomayor has.

seeill be interesting to what she does. kannon: is the direction of the court going to be decided by the next election? nicole: yes. miguel: yes. i should urge you not to vote. kannon: miguel. [laughter] one of the things i thought was interesting is we think about the court, we named it after the chief justice. [indiscernible] kannon: the gloves are off. i'm going to leave. the court is named after chief justices. the chief justice doesn't control the corporate with the obama administration the president runs the executive branch. , he could beourt in dissent of the presidential election comes out in a particular direction. adam: it is a we are to

attribute a name to a court where the person in question has one vote and where the personnel of the event, i have lost track of my syntax. the personal of the court changes. kannon: to what extent do you think a dramatic change in the direction of the court has influenced the chief's thinking? miguel: i don't think it has. if hemaking the point were instrumental he would write broadly on the areas but he isn't. either he has a lot of [indiscernible] or he thinks this is the appropriate role for the court. kannon: there is a lot to be said for that. he may have a longer time uzrizon than the cr administration. miguel: that is low.

why not the trump administration? nicole: it is a long game for those two. >> in terms of the issues the court has on the docket, what is left for the court? it feels the court will have touched on the highest profile issues of constitutional law and public office? miguel: [indiscernible] foreign relations. war. kannon: they did have the case last year. adam: next time we have one person, one vote, we have we have ae action, public-sector unions. we likely have abortion. the right side of the court is ahead in the voting in most cases. the texture of the next term looks different. kannon: and important business cases. adam: of course. miguel: there is a lot of

-- nicole: you look at what the court has granted. it looks like it is going to be a boring term. think of where we were this time last year. they hadn't decided to hear a lot of it and it shipped to be an insanely busy term. we already have high profile stuff. kannon: decisions will come down in the midst of the presidential campaign. we have covered a lot of ground. i want to leave time for questions. because we are being filmed i will repeat the questions even though i suspect everyone will be able to hear them. the was a lady waiting with a question from earlier. >> public employee speech seems to be an area of turmoil for the court. the question was about

the garcetti case and public employee speech. anyone want to tackle it? miguel: it has always been on popular. wheremember the case there was somebody in law enforcement who had been fired because when president reagan was shot she said i hope they go after him again and they get him. the court upheld the view that she could not be fired for that statement, prompting justice scalia to have one of the most memorable case. the question this case is can write -- ride with the cops injured for the robbers. yes you can. they're members of the court to have been very skeptical for a --g time, being a relative

relic of the 1960's. the court gives a fisheye two. ok. but. we will see hand whether they have a consistent view of the case next term. kannon: do you want to say in little bit about the abud case? adam: in a case which the court agreed to hear, the court has now for the third time, it has been tinkering around the margins, it will address the following first amendment question of whether if you work for theonized shop government, you don't have to join the union but you have to pay fees to the union for collective bargaining. does it violate your first amendment rights to be made to be compelled such fees if you do not think you deserve more money

, you don't think the government should spend money on your pensions? [laughter] kannon: adam was making sure that miguel was still awake. adam: i don't think it is crazy. collective bargaining has a speech aspect to it. you cannot be compelled to pay fees for political activity. the question is that negotiation with the government feels like lobbying, and feels a little stinky sometimes. does it pilot your first thedment rights? whatever legal answer is, the consequences of a decision against such a range of men's, the ability of people to opt out of being members of public sector unions and taking a free ride would really devastate public-sector unions.

miguel: and in the democratic party. kannon: that is one of the cases where the court invited the challenge by justice alito. adam: yes. v. quinn.e justice kagan defended the principal. adam: clearly alito did not have five votes. the vote he didn't have was scalia's vote. hero a decision saying boy, is it a horrible decision. he went on about how horrible it was. today we are not going to overrule it. kagan says they couldn't stop saying, and saying how much they hated abud, but not today. kannon: other questions?

>> i found it striking. you talk about how this is a .egal court they talk in legal terms. the public seems to regard it as a politicized court. the public regards in that fashion. you talked about how they don't look at the standards but they will fit them to the standards. maybe talking about corporations as persons. i don't want you to overstate citizens union but what is the disconnect between the court that is practicing and the perception of the court as a politicized, party driven court? adam: there are two things going on. most cases before the court involve strictly legal questions in which smart lawyers are making inferences from eagle

materials. the ordinary argument looks -- it doesn't look like politics. it looks like law. the cases on the first page of my newspaper are controversial cases and they look more like politics and law. that isr thing, distinctive, this is the first has closelyhat divided in which the party of the appointing president perfectly predicts the ideology of the voting. think back. stevens, souter, warren, brennan, blackmun. the fact that a president appointed you wouldn't automatically tell you where you are in the array read here all five are to the right, and that cannot help but influence public

perception. kannon: do you think that bothers the chief justice? he often is trying to fight the perception. adam: he hates it. i wonder if it played a role in the first affordable care act place. had it gone the other way and the five republican appointees struck down the signature legislative achievement of a democratic president maybe that would have affected the presiden perception of the cour. miguel: that cannot be right. wrote respectable opinions upholding the act. if the chief are looking for a this for material -- then to write an opinion. kannon: so why did he do that?

adam: you can talk to two audiences at once. chief justice upholds affordable legalact for the audience, at least he gave us medicaid and did what he could. miguel: maybe. the fact is, i do think that if you were looking to do that, he would have done a simpler opinion. it would have been a lot more plausible than what he wrote. there is a decent argument. matter to the opinion. i'm not sure what he gave anyway. kannon: other questions? >> any predictions in newman? kannon: will the supreme court take newman? miguel: they just filed two days ago. possibly yes. kannon: say what the case is.

miguel: this is coming out of the second circuit court of appeals for insider trading. thise a particular view of you should take into account. for many years, the southern district of new york has been pushing this question of liability. the question in this case is whether somebody who had a tip, anims the government from untoward source should be prosecuted and sent to jail. it is complicated by the fact that there is a lot of people in the chain who are stock analysts . there is a certain school of view that says if you are in benefit the you market by getting information into the market. the law says of course that you

cannot go out and bribe somebody to get a tip. at the core of this case is informationou had leakage that appeared to be in the social context and was not obviously in a quid pro quo and down to the financial benefit, the person who got prosecuted did not know there had been any financial benefit, whether that is enough to prosecute somebody criminally. the second circuit, and what was viewed at the time as a change in that court's attitude toward these cases said no. the second circuit is concerned by some of the factors that motivated the other services case. -- they benefited

by being liked by the person. socialorts of relationships are enough of a tangible benefit to put somebody in jail for 20 years. having said that, it is an important area of law. therefore you have to take seriously the possibility the court will look at it a very serious way. chance is there any the government could win it? miguel: the left side of the court is pro-enforcement. as view these people polluting the market and you have to tough on criminals. it is hard to tell. the actual issue underlining this case has a lot of if enis -- ifiness.

surface of this case, the one thing they could agree was ok, you can make up any crime and then call it services fraud. that trouble the court. the government will have to urge is going to force where youthat box have to say if you met the guy at the church, and you like them from the church, and that was the benefit, that is enough for a felony. that is one of the tips in that case. that is a big told. adam: a delightful piece of the cases a circuit split. because the justice in the southern district, sometimes whose intention happened to be visiting his judge on the ninth circuit, he decided he would decide that case at odds with the court that ordinarily

supervises him. miguel: if you read the opinion the claim is overblown because he said we don't know if we agree on behalf of the ninth circuit. at the end it does not matter. kannon: we are not going to ask nicole to express an opinion on that. adam: there is a bit careful what you wish for aspect of this. there is a possibility the upshot of the petition is affirmance of the decision below. that is not unlikely. kannon: other questions? yes? -- rom yesterday's program kannon: which one? miguel: we have 20.

>> there was a concern the government had done sharp -- [inaudible] two or impede the question about the rhetoric on the court. this was something i believe justice stevens and his speech to one of the aba sections talked about as well. oni would like your comments what would be the roberts view. adam: has reporter, the more quotable stuff the better. i encourage it. [laughter] miguel: that sounds like one of things from aable fortune cookie. adam: i would put my head in a bag sooner than agree with you. [laughter] deepl: this is in the

steps of the dissent. i don't think it has changed that much. there are certain members of the court that tend to be more caustic when they are in dissent. changed.not scalia was a happy member of the rehnquist court and he wrote nasty things about sandra day o'connor when she was around. his opinion was a what heyond what even has been. not much more than a touch. in that case it reflects 21 years of deep-seated frustration with anthony and kennedy. i don't think it is that much more beyond what he has done before. i don't know there are other members of the court who

routinely engage in that rhetorical writing. adam: i'm going to disagree -- kannon: i'm what you disagree. you think the other new members have been caustic, including the chief justice? who included lines like who do we think we are? the read case.s adam: it wasn't directed at colleagues. beenn: justice kagan has sharpened her defenses. she doesn't write many of them. the couple sentences in the marriage case for personal and deeply wounding, and more about the quality of the writing , pompous and egotistical. miguel: that was justice scalia. nicole: five lawyers think they

can do whatever they want. that is not something you would normally say about your colleagues. not fair on the point of the marriage. justice scalia's opinion was caustic and personal. -- i have you think been on panels for he has said this has a corrosive effect on the profession. you agree? miguel: i think it encourages people in the trenches who are not known for being civil to each other for thinking that done,s a good thing to be and the one thing about justice scalia is he can write prose in a way that is enjoyable and you can have a guilty laugh out of. where most people try to emulate him in the discovery disputes.

so, it may be that people take their cue from that. it is not helpful to the profession. adam: maybe it elevates the quality of the incivility. [laughter] martin dempsey: the other thing that wasn't -- nicole: the other thing that was surprising to me, that was a heated oral argument. a heated time when the judge were giving their opinions. it was one of the only times i've been in court and then uncomfortable. this question seems to be a shouldn't you executed because somebody is trying to ban the death penalty? is the besthat thing for society, is it to make it more heated or to try to have a more civilized dialogue?

>> don't you think that disturbed the chief justice? was this line were the chief justice said we are going to give you more time because we have taken up more of your time than usual. >> to be fair, everything that had been bottled up the day before blew up the next day. him accusing the inmate of being part of an organized group and on the other hand accusing himayor ar of being an outright liar. worst oralably the

argument you have seen at the supreme court in several decades. >> the chief justice seemed uncomfortable, but think of how the chief justice would have handled that. >> he would have stopped it. he would have gone no. argument where i was covering five people coming at the same time. it basically goes one at a time. give the man a chance. he had a different manner to intervene. i don't think chief justice roberts would do that. job ofas done a good trying to control the court. sotomayorwith justice he has had to do traffic.

>> we're almost out of time. i have been asked to read the following script, so i am dutifully going to do so. thank you for coming to program name. join the you to panelists in the showcase lounge in riverside center one floor directly below. for further conversation, coffee , tea, and soft drinks will be available. stop by the lounge to take a complementary headshot. drive with a test tesla motors, and attend a session and visit the many exhibitors to learn about new and exciting products. it remains for me to take all of

you for getting up extra early and joining us for this program. please join me in thanking our counsel. on today's washington journal, retired commander kirk lippold on his criticism of the iran and deal interview on efforts to combat islamic terrorism. lunch, guest is not former missouri governor and american auto council president. and jason williamson from the aclu on his organization's efforts to reform police practice across the u.s..

last week former president jimmy carter announced that he has cancer. today he gives us an update on his condition. our live coverage starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. this weekend on the c-span network, politics, books, and american history. on c-span saturday, live coverage of the iowa state fair continues. we will year from republican governors chris christie at new, then bobby jindal at one of rpm. and sunday evening at 6:30, wisconsin republican governor scott walker holds a town hall meeting in ashland, new hampshire. on c-span to saturday, book tv is live at the inaugural mississippi book festival : 30 a.m..at 11 it features panel discussions on civil rights, history, and biography. and the literary lives of harper

lee and eudora wealthy. a.m.,nday at 10:00 thoughts on the obama administration's relationship with millennial's. on american history tv on c-span3, saturday afternoon at 5:00, columbia university's andrew on the commission created to protect new york city landmarks. p.m.,nday at four clock real america. yet our complete schedule and c-span.org. next, republican presidential candidate new jersey governor chris christie hold a town hall meeting with supporters at molly's tavern and restaurant in a new boston, new hampshire. his remarks are an hour and 40 minutes. his remarks are an hour and 40

minutes. >> good evening i remember the first time i heard him speak. this is refreshing. i know he will tell it like it is. am the chair of the boston republican committee.

you have never been to one of , please come and see us. we have some great speakers. and we will welcome you. i am going to turn this microphone over to governor christie. gov. christie: it is great to be here tonight. i first want to introduce the best thing that happened to me during my four years at the university of delaware. i came out with a bachelors degree of political science and a wife, the first lady of new jersey, mary pat christie. and tell you, one of the things i have enjoyed the most so far

about this campaign is the fact that mary pat and i have been able to meet so many extraordinary people. and when i go back to new jersey, people ask me all the time, what is it like to campaign for president of the united states in places like new hampshire, iowa, and south carolina. i tell people all the time it will renew your confidence in american democracy. that was the first thing i thought about when i came around the corner from the car and saw all of you down here at the bottom of that little incline. and america should see this, and i hope they do, because here we are, on an august evening, on a wednesday night, and so many folks from new hampshire are out here tonight to listen to a candidate for president of the united states, and to try to

help make your decision about who the republican nominee should be and who the next president of the united states should be. people get cynical about our government, we all do sometimes, and man, we earn it. but this is what they should see. how engaged americans are in the way they are going to be governed. i wish my oldest son andrew was here tonight. he continues, when i come home, to ask me questions about what it is like to run for president. he should see this tonight. this is what it is like to run for president. thank you for being here. thank you for being here. there is a little guy in a yellow shirt waving at me. don't want to disappoint him. thank you, buddy. i want to leave the rest of the time for you to ask me questions.

i have done a bunch of these town hall meetings in new jersey. over 130 in the time i have been governor. some of you have seen those on youtube or on the computer. they tend to be somewhat raucous affairs at times. i am much more couple answering your questions and finding out what is on your mind. here are two things i want to talk about. if you watch the debate almost two weeks ago now, and i assume that if you are here you probably watched the debate -- only 24 million of our fellow americans were tuned in that night. if you remember the interaction i had with evan or huckabee, i want to read the -- governor huckabee, i want to revisit that for a second. it was a civilized its agreement and exchange. i thought that was great. we have differing opinions on this issue. governor huckabee came up to me on the commercial -- that is the stuff you really wanted to see, by the way. you are watching fox make a lot of money from commercials. they should have given you an option to pay a little more and watch what we are doing. governor huckabee came up to me and said, thanks for such a civilized exchange. i said to him, i have known mike for a while. mike, you are civilized to me, and i will be civilized to you. that is how it should be. we were an hour and five minutes or so into that debate. here is why it is a problem. 71% of the federal budget today,

71% is being spent by entitlements and debt service. we spend the overwhelming amount of time except for that question on the other 29%. why is that? politicians are scared to talk to you about it. we have to reform the entitlement system because the government has failed you on entitlements. the government told you if you paid into the system, they keep it in a trust fund and that money would be kept there for you until it was time for you to retire and then it would be paid back to you with interest. you could help to support your retirement. here is some bad news, everybody, that you already know. there is no trust. there is no trust fund. the trust fund is filled with a stack of iou's from the federal government. since we fund the government, it is iou's from ourselves to ourselves. those are the worst. you have to pay yourself back. my disagreement with governor

huckabee is he said we can't change entitlements because if we do, that will be absolutely lying and stealing by the government.

i said to governor huckabee, here is the best new -- bad news. the line of stealing has occurred. this is a classic closing the barn door after the horse ran out. we have to get the horse back into the barn. it is unacceptable to allow what is happening to social security and medicare. i suggested the most detailed

program, in fact the only program anyone has offered on entitlement program. this is hard to say you are the only person who has offered a plan when there are 16 other candidates in the rate, not in cloud -- not counting the five democrats. there is only one, and you are looking at him, who has put this forward. it is too scary to put for her other people because they are afraid you will get upset. i feel differently. i trust you.

i think you already know the truth about this already. you know what needs to be done. you need to have a leader that says let's move in this direction and it and be trustful enough to tell you the truth. we need to raise the retirement age. when those programs were developed, people's life expectancy was in the mid to late 60's. the average life expectancy of a woman in america is 83 years old. the average life expectancy in a man in america is 79 years old. a couple of ladies smiling. [laughter] a decade ago you had a six-year lead on us. a decade later, it is down to a four-yearly. we are gaining on you. that for your vacation you were counting on, you may not get it. you may have to put up with us your entire life.

the good news is we are living longer lies and better lies. it is a blessing that we have more time on this earth to share with our family and friends and to do so in good health. what it means for the systems is we are taking moneys out of these systems 15-20 years longer than they were intended to have. it can't work. what do we need to do? here's what i propose. we raise it two years and phase it in over the next five years. eligibility would go up one month a year for the next 25 years. one month a year for the next 25 years. it means that people who were on social security now are not affected now. people who are not affected by social security -- who are close to social security may be affected by a month or two. that is all. it will help the solvency of the system for the young people who are here who maybe now are in their teens or early 20's. it will make the system available for them. i remember a young man coming up to me after a town hall meeting, he was 23 years old, fully me he had just got his first job out of college and he said i'm glad you are given with entitlements because i said that blanket deduction in my paycheck and i think, what a joke. social security will not be there for me. we want him to feel confident in the fact that he is paying into a system that he will get something back in return if he needs it. that is the second point. i do the same thing with medicare. to your increase over 25 years. i said to a group of folks at a fundraiser of mine -- they said, what you mean by means testing for social security? it means none of you will get it. [laughter] if you are rich enough to be at this fundraiser, you are probably not going to get social

security if i have my way. here's what i mean. let's be very specific. if you make over $200,000 a year in retirement income, and that means you have 4 million or $5 million, not counting your home, $4 million invested and thrown off income of $200,000 a year or more, the first thing i said he was congratulations. you have done a great job in your life. you have lived your life and had that kind of money saved. it is a great thing. i want to remind you that in this greatest country of the world that gave you the opportunity to do that. no place else in the world have you had as free and an unfettered opportunity to pick you mean like that wealth than you have in the united states. here is the last part. if you are making that kind of money, that social security check make any difference in your lifestyle? it won't. here is what social security is supposed to be about and the reason it was started. security. it was supposed to be a

supplement or people's other plans of retirement or a safety net for people who worked hard and played by the rules and paid into the system. because of the twists and turns that our lives sometimes take, they were going to grow old in poverty. we don't want anyone in the united states of america to grow old in poverty and have to choose between heat and food and rest. so security -- social security can provide that for those people who need to have a safety net underneath them. if we do not make these changes, that safety net may not be there for these folks. harvard did a study that said social security will be broke in 7-8 years. we are not talking way off into the future. let's contrast that with what secretary clinton says she wants to do.

she wants to take the cap off of social security tax. she wants to say that you will pay fica tax on every nickel you make. it right now it is cap that $118,000 a year. you make more than that, you don't pay any more fica tax. the you really want to give the government, who lied to you install for you, more money -- and stole from you, more money? we are having this discussion because the government was in at and dishonest in the waiting it dealt with social security. clinton's solution is get it more. if you want to do that, let's take money away from companies rather than giving more money to government. i think that is a commonsense idea and i think it is the way conservative republicans think. we don't want to give the government more money. it does not make any sense. we will figure out a way washington, d.c. to spend it on something else and they will come back again and do you know the next thing mrs. clinton will

do? when she becomes president she will raise the tax rate as well, guaranteed. we just need a little more. it is only little if you are receiving, not if you are giving it. then it is a lot more than a little. on medicare, same thing, $200,000 or more a year in income. right now we subsidize your medicare premium 75%. for those folks come say we subsidize the premium 10%. it will save tens of billions of dollars a year if we give them a lower subsidy. they have the money to pay for it. let's make those folks pay a little more for their health care so that medicare is there, fully subsidized, for those who really need it.

who otherwise would have to go to the emergency room to get their treatment, and we know that is the most ineffective and costly way for us to deliver health care. either way, we will be paying for that, too, but at a much higher rate than what we paid with metal care. i talk about entitlement reform not because i want to, but because i'm a politician and i like to get votes and be elected and i know that it's risky. i also know that if you aren't running for the most important job in the world during a time when you are within seven or eight years of this long-standing, successful, anti-poverty program from going broke, you had better talk about it or you have no business running for president of the united states. i hope you get more people in new boston who are in our primary, ask them. don't let them get away with the old we will study it and looked at it. we looked at it plenty. now it is time to dig your heels

in and take a position. tell the american people where you are at. that is what we need to do. [applause] thing i want to talk about is lawlessness. i have a different point of view than some on this because i'm a former federal prosecutor. before i became governor for seven years, i was a united states attorney in new jersey. i was named u.s. attorney by george w. bush on september 10, 2001. a job i said yes to on september 10, 2001, changed a whole lot 24 hours later. 24 hours later, my wife did what she had been doing for many years. she drove to the train station. she took two train stations and made her way through the world trade center in lower manhattan and walked to her jobs. her job was two blocks from the world trade center. my younger brother did what he has been doing since a late 1980's. got in a car, took a couple of trains, walked into the world trade center and walked to the floor do new york stock exchange

where he had been working since he got out of college. when the first plane hit, mary pat said she could see out her window. don't worry about it. they said it was a small commuter plane. you remember. while we were on the phone, the second plane hit the second building. she told me that the people in her office said to evacuate to the basement and that she would call me later. at that moment we had three children in our lives. our son andrew, who was eight at the time, our daughter sarah, who was five at the time, and our son patrick. patrick had just turned one year old. those five and a half hours were

the longest five and a half hours of my life, because 45 and a half hours i did not hear from her. one building fell, the other building fell, and there were reports of explosions and bombs that all turned out to be wrong, but i did not know that. i kept calling. i could not get her on the phone. finally, five and a half hours later i got a phone call from a bar payphone telling me that she had made her way out of lower manhattan further uptown and was figuring out a way to get home. we figured out a way to get her home and think god, t my brother,oo. our whole lives were changed -- and thank god, my brother, too. our whole lives were changed that day. lawlessness. the lack of respect for the laws of our country started in earnest that day. people so disregarded the law that they thought they could hijack airliners, fly them into buildings, kill thousands of people, and that they did so in the name of religion.

my job from that moment forward was to make sure that lawlessness was ended. was to enforce the law and to prevent any acts of terrorism on our watch again that would kill americans. i want to make sure you all understand. let's remember for a second the gravity of the losses that day. if we gave a moment of silence for every lost soul on 9/11, just one minute, we know now it has been nearly 14 years since those attack. those families have gone 14 years without their loved ones, husband or wife, son or daughter, brother or sister. if we gave one minute -- we would be more than willing to give a moment of silence. here's what would happen. if we have a moment of silent for each and every one of those lost souls that day, we would be sitting here in silence until 9:45 p.m. on friday. straight. if we gave each lost soul one minute. the families have had in years of silence from loved ones. see, i got into a spat with

senator paul on the debate stage -- a little less civilized than my back and forth with governor huckabee, but only because senator paul decided to be uncivilized. that's ok. we guys from new jersey are versatile. [laughter] we can be civilized if we need

to be, and we can be less so if we need to be as well. the reason i was so direct with him is because i almost lost my loved ones that day. we lost a good friend of ours in our parish that day. he died in the world trade center. our oldest son's best friend's dad was killed that day and we have watched that young man grow up. every year on his father's birthday he puts his father's picture as his cover picture on his facebook page and he writes underneath it, "dad, we will never forget you."

we can't forget his father, either. we can have other people in our country. we cannot have other people in our country who have to suffer the same fate these folks did. i care about civil liberties very much and i treasure our constitution, but we can protect our homeland and protect our civil liberties at the same time. what they did in washington dc to stop the nsa from collecting phone records has made the usa more vulnerable. understand what they were doing. they were collecting phone records. they were not monitoring your e-mail. none of that was happening. if you listen to senator paul, he would make you believe that was happening. none of it was happening. do you know what happened? they collect these phone records, they match them up on a computer. if your phone number either called the number of a known terrorist or received a call from the number of a known

terrorist, then, and only event, did someone like me and attorney goes to a court and ask for a war. then, and only that -- ask for a warrant. then, and only then, could we ask for a wiretap. that is because you are receiving calls from a known terrorist. with senator paul says get a warrant, that is how you do it -- that is what an ophthalmologist says about someone who knows nothing about the law. [applause] i don't blame him. they did not teach and that in ophthalmology school. they taught me that in law school. it is easy to say this stuff when you don't have responsibility of protecting the lives of the american people. i had that responsibility for seven years in my state. there was not a day when i didn't think about the fact that one of those airplanes took off from an airport in my state, and that is the most ethnically diverse state in america. our state is a great way to hide, because you can find someone who looks and sounds like you anywhere in new jersey.

we had to take this seriously. ,eople who are here illegally to commit crimes with impunity and hide because the president of united states refuses to enforce the law. country,tates in this despite the fact that marijuana is illegal drug, people are allowed to buy it, sell it, smoke it with impunity, even though the federal books still say that is against the law, because this president refuses to enforce the law. the fact is that the oath matters.

the oath i took as governor of new jersey said i will enforce the laws of state of new jersey. not the ones i like. all the laws. this president does not have the right to enforce the laws he likes and not the ones he doesn't. that is why we have people getting killed in sanctuary cities, because he has refused to enforce the law. that is why we have lawlessness. you heard the governor of colorado talk about the loss of productivity. of course, man. [laughter] are we shocked? it is so -- you know, the fact is that laws matter. you want to change the law you don't like? that is fine. we have a process. go to congress. change the law. go to your state legislature. i don't want to be a dictator. i want to be a loyal servant of the law. because in the end, that is what matters the most. we are a government of laws, not of men and women. you do not want us to become a government of men and women. it ise do, it is ok -- like what president bush used to

say. a dictatorship is ok when you are the dictator. old suddenly becomes a whole different story. i will talk a lot about enforcing the law. enforcing the law would solve our problems with immigration. enforcing the law will solve our problems with productivity. enforcing the law will give everyone in this group tonight the comfort of knowing that you live under the blanket of a republic that has a president who will enforce the laws strictly and directly. all the laws. that will extend around the world as well. order in the world, shown through american leadership, can help make it a safer place. we are going to talk about that a lot. a lot. [applause] i'm going to stop now and go to

your questions. in new jersey, we have to have lots of rules that a townhall meeting. we have four of them. i found in new hampshire we only need one role. -- we only need one rule. you just raise your hand and i call on you. don't yell out questions. i don't answer yelled out questions. it's not because i'm governor of new jersey or candidate for president of the united states freedom i am a father of four. [laughter] as a father of four i have developed an acute ability to ignore things that are yelled at me. given that we are just coming off of five days of family vacation, we are all six of us -- where all six of us were together. that sense right now is very finely honed after that. you raise your hands, ask questions, and i am happy to answer them. yes, sir. there is a microphone coming for you. >> thank you, governor christie, for coming out tonight.

as a resident of manchester, i believe that every job, regardless of where they are born, should be an opportunity -- should be given opportunity to grow to their full potential. when we create partnerships and join the country and private sector we can build the foundation for strong, independent people and independent nations. if elected, will you launch a presidential initiative on global, early childhood development that focuses on malnutrition and early childhood education so every child not only survives but thrives? these children were someone's sister, brother, niece, nephews, sons and daughters, and every parent wants the best for the children. gov. christie: i was just at an education summit today. we had it in new hampshire. a number of us went and spoke.

what i said is that the single most important economic security and national security issue of our time. right now we are ranked 20th in science, 27th in man's around -- in math around the world. you cannot be at that level and expect to be the number one economic and military power in the world. especially in our areas of great need, where our educational system is not doing well. we want to get children into the educational system as quickly as we can. we do it aggressively. each state has to look into their own. they have to set their priorities. what i would say as president is listen you can invest now or , invest later.

if we don't invest now, if we do not invest now and we had children who fail, it is going to cost us a lot more later on to do it. i would be encouraged for everyone to do it. on a global basis, listen. america needs to be a leader in every way we can be. the president's role in that function is to be persuasive. is to speak to leaders of other countries and attempt to lead by example and persuade, and i think it is a very important thing to do. the last thing on nutrition. is a sin that we have children and adults that come up hungry. there are ways for us to partner, as you suggested, with the government and private sector and charities to lessen the amount of hunger in our country.

we know that children who are not well fed, it is almost impossible for them to learn. on that portion we have a lot of work to do at home before we do more work around the world. we will continue to help around the world that i think we have more work to do on the nutrition front at home and in partnership with private sector and with charities to be able to make sure we fill that gap of people who are hungry. what folks go to bed hungry in , quite friendly i think it is a sin to allow that to happen. i think it is a sin that is allowed to happen in a country with so much. we should not have that happening. thanks for raising the issue. [applause] >> thank you. gov. christie: come on over. >> i know that you have said that you believe climate change is real. i was wondering if you think it is a real threat to our country

and if you have any plans to fight it. governor christie: i believe climate change is happening and i believe humans contribute to it. i don't think we're the only contributors and i think climate has changed for a very long time. do we do try to make sure it does not change into a way that becomes a threat to us? i do not believe in the apocalypse of " an inconvenient truth." nothing i subscribe to. but let me tell you what we have done in new jersey. i think we need to reach clean air goals. this is good for people's health. there are days when people in china cannot walk around without surgical masks because of the pollution. we don't want to have that situation in the united states. we shouldn't. in new jersey, we have met our

clean air goals for the year 2020 and we did it while pulling out of something that you are still in here in new hampshire, called the regional greenhouse gas initiative, which is a cap and trade program, a tax. new jersey pulled out of it. pennsylvania never joined. we pulled out because i thought we could do without the tax. 53% of new jersey's electricity is generated by nuclear. we have to look at nuclear again. a deep breathe about three mile island. the fact is we need to keep , looking at nuclear. it can be done safely. if you stay on top of it and regulate, it can be done safely. 53% of new jersey's electricity comes from nuclear. here is one where if you go to a bar and come back here maybe

this weekend. you can win a bet with anybody. i guarantee. ask them to name the top three states in america in solar energy production. everybody guesses california and arizona. and they are right. who is number three? the great garden state of new jersey. yes. no one will guess that. new jersey is number three in the country in the production of solar energy. we partnered with the private sector with tax credits and incentives to put forward a vigorous program on solar energy. we believe solar energy was the best of the alternative energies for us to invest in that people would buy and support and could be effective. we partnered with energy companies. we partnered with private business. now, new jersey is the third largest source of solar energy in america. that is helping us get to our clean energy goals as well. fourth is we are now in the , process of building three new

natural gas-fired electricity plants. a cleaner burning fossil fuel. really available to us because of the marcellus shale in pennsylvania. it has become less expensive. in the last 18 months, energy costs have gone down in new jersey 9% because we rely on natural gas. my view on this is that there are ways for us to reach our clean energy goals without making us noncomparative. new jersey's energy prices are going down in that is going to make us more competitive in jobs where energy is a big cost driver. we reached our clean air quotas. you can do this without having to tax people. republican can be a to say i want to have a republican solution. the democratic solution to this problem is cap and trade, tax more and more investment in failed clean energy alternatives. let's invest in the ones we know

work, and solar is one we know that works. wind works on land. one of the other states i have been visiting a lot lately iowa. , there are a lot of windmills in iowa. you could put a windmill in new jersey. we are the most densely populated state in america. we have 8.9 million people in a state about that big. you put one of those windmills up in new jersey, it is going to be a major problem. this is a gift from god. we are temporary stewards for the next generation and the generation after that. we have to try to get better but i will not do it in a way that puts america at an economic disadvantage because i want you to get a job. i also want you to keep a job. to be able to support your family and do it in a way that is competitive in the rest

of the world. that is my feeling on the issue. [applause] >> yes, sir. i will give you mine. >> based on a premise that if this were, say, 1936, and we knew what was going to happen in europe, wouldn't we have done something to stop it? today that is happening through isis. innocent men, women, and children are being butchered. what are you willing to do to stop it? thank you for coming to new boston, the gravity center of the world. [laughter] gov. christie: you are all going to have to explain the gravity center thing to me later. that's all right. i do feel quite tethered to the ground. maybe that is it. if i had told you three years ago that we would have a terrorist force that would be

beheading christians because of who they believe in, you probably would have told me you wouldn't believe it. but that is what's happening right now. right now. christians across the middle east are being beheaded not for anything they've done, not for any territorial type of incursion they've made, not because of any insult that they have made to islam, but because they are christian, because they believe in jesus christ. they are being beheaded. america has to be a leader in the world. if we are the place that puts in its first amendment to the constitution the idea of religious freedom and the provision that the government shall not establish a religion. it's both. the power of our constitution is that not only do we say that you

should be able to worship god in the way that you see fit, that your soul and conscience lead you to do, we also say by the way, our government has no business of telling you that we have a national religion, either. we know that could have a chilling effect on your ability to freely believe in the god that you believe in in the way that you believe in it. isis is an extraordinary threat. let's think about this. president said isis was the j.v. isis was not on the high-priority list of secretary clinton. they all said this was not a big deal. it is a big deal. here is what i would do. we have to learn from what happened in iraq. what i mean by that is that america cannot become an occupying force in the middle east. whenever we become an occupying force, we wind up being disrespected and we wind up causing even more problems in the region.

the first alternative i would pursue is this -- the jordanians, who had a pilot burned alive in a cage, believe me, they want to take care of isis. the egyptians, the saudis, and ratis.i they want to take care of isis and they are in the neighborhood. we need to provide leadership. we will arm you with the most sophisticated weaponry we can't give you to take these people on, first off. [applause] second, we need to say we are going to train you, and not at the high general level, down to the battalion level on how to use these weapons and build the most sophisticated fighting force the world has ever known. third, we need to provide them with intelligence. isis is not a nationstate. it is in all kinds of places in the middle east. we have to improve our

intelligence capability and provide that intelligence to those country so they can find them and kill them where they are. fourth, we need to provide the air power of the united states which is greater than any of those countries to soften up those targets so that when those troops move in, they are moving softened target that they can kill. i would want to give them the opportunity to do this first. now, if they could not do it on their own, then we have to go finish the job. because if we don't, they are coming here. we know that. [applause] it will not be my option of first resort, but it will be my option of next resort. i think that is what the american people would want. the number one job of the president of the united states is to protect the lives and security of the people of the united states. i think even this president, who still does not have a strategy

for how to do with isis, and this secretary of state, former secretary of state running for president who says she will get back to us on that one, back to us on the pipeline, act was on a number of other issues that she doesn't want to deal with. we need a leader who says i will have a plan and we will execute the plan. and you know from hearing me talk about these issues that i spent seven years of my life trying to make sure that terrorism did not come back to the united states of america. i did not invest those seven years of my life and the lives of the men and women who worked for me in federal law enforcement to give that away to isis what we prevented with al qaeda. it is the same organization under a different name that hates america for being america and loving freedom and liberty. first, let's arm our friends, let's train them, let's give

them the best intelligence and the air cover they need to fight because guess what? they don't want to live under that kind of rule either, in any of those countries. if they cannot finish the job, the united states needs to go over and finish the job with strong leadership from a strong commander-in-chief. [applause] yes, sir. right there. coming up behind you. >> good afternoon. i think one of the things that would make america great would be to bring back jobs in this country. a lot of people today go to college, like my son. we can spend anywhere from $40,000-$50,000 per year. these kids are coming out of college and some of them just don't get jobs. why can't we keep some of these great jobs in america and start -- and stop exporting them to china and all these other places?

why can't we lower the tax brackets for the major corporations to keep the jobs here? let them be profitable and let us bring the young folk so they can survive. instead of paying rent, they can buy homes. gov. christie: you are singing my song, man. i am with you. [applause] by the way, this is something that is personal to me and very -- and mary pat. we have two children in college right now. our oldest son, andrew, is getting ready to start his senior year at princeton and he is nervous about getting a job. for that school, we are paying $60,000 a year and our daughter, sarah, is going to be a sophomore at notre dame. we are dropping her off this weekend. that school is $62,000 year. during my five days off, we were just writing those checks. i'm glad this is the gravity center.

[laughter] my wallet is much lighter than it was before, so i need this extra gravity in new boston. here is what i propose. i put forward a specific plan. for all these plans i talk about, you can go to my website. they are all detail there. chrischristie.com. if you are having trouble sleeping, it will help you. it will give you all the detail you need. here's what we need to do. i will start with where you are. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. how is it at 35% that the , country that perfected the free enterprise system now is the greatest taxer of the free enterprise system in the world? it's crazy. it's because we have a president who believes that all wisdom and answers reside in washington dc and he gets to pick the winners and losers. the way he does that is tax all of us. use that money to pick the winners and losers himself.

i say we need to lower that corporate tax rate to 25%. that would put us right in the middle of the rest of the world. we don't have to be the lowest rate, but if we are competitive we will keep some of those jobs. we need to lower the individual tax rate in this country. we cannot do that cheaply. it will cost us doing other things. get rid of all the loopholes in -- loopholes and deductions except for two, the mortgage deduction and charitable contribution deduction. all the rest of them, goodbye. lower the rate to 28% at the highest rate and only have three rates. rate, 8% isighest the lowest. pick one rate in the middle. i'll negotiate. imagine. rates that low, how much more of your on money you would be able to keep. you know that the tax code right now is rigged for the rich.

it is. it's rigged for the wealthy because the wealthy are the ones who use most of those loopholes and deductions. regular everyday americans don't. let's get rid of them. the wealthy have never done better than they have under barack obama. ever. amazing, right? the guy who complains all the time about income inequality in the wealthy are better under barack obama than any other president in recent times. imagine how quickly you would do your taxes. here is how much you made. here's how much you paid in home mortgage interest. here's how much you paid to charity. here is the number, multiply by whatever bracket you're in and you are done. not only will it lower your anxiety, but can you imagine how many people i can fire from the irs when i do that? [applause] that is going to create economic activity as well, to help create more jobs here.

the third piece is regulation. this president has regulated or -- regulated more than any other president in united states history. last years alone they had 81,000 pages of new federal regulation in one year. eight 1000 pages. the small business administration says that the cost of federal regulation for each small business in this country is $10,000 per employee. that is a hidden tax that every small business owner, whether you are an ice cream shop or bicycle shop, whether you are a garage that repairs cars or no matter who you are, $10,000 per employee to comply with federal regulation. we're going to do the same thing i did as governor of new jersey. i had the same kind of mess. big regulating liberal democrat that i replaced as governor. the person that was his environmental commissioner became the epa commissioner under barack obama. that is all you need to know but -- to know about what i

confronted. day one, freeze any regulation from any department or agency in the state government in 90 days. i sent someone out to say which are the worst regulations that are costing you the most, giving you the least benefit, driving you the most crazy? give us the list and we will get rid of them. in my first year we got rid of 1/3 of the regulations with one stroke of the pen. we can do the same thing as president. [applause] i guarantee that will be executive order number one. close your eyes and picture it. i'm in the oval office in 2017. i walk in and go, oh, my god, i'm here. then, i will sit down and sign the order freezing any new regulation from the federal government and sending the vice president out to hold a series of public meetings to find out which federal regulations are

the ones that are absolutely restricting our ability to create more jobs in this country. when he or she comes back with that list, then we will get rid of them the same way i got rid of them in new jersey. that is how we will create jobs in the country. the last piece is energy policy. we have to have the energy policy that says we will exploit the assets that we have, make energy costs lower. that is what brings manufacturing jobs back. the manufacturing jobs that went to china and mexico went there because of cost of labor and cost of energy. we don't want to change cost of labor because i don't want people making minimal money that won't help them have the lifestyle they need in this country. but we can now compete and win , on energy costs if we get natural gas from out from under the ground, have greater investment in alternative energies and lower the cost of , energy in the country. if we lower the cost of energy

manufacturing jobs will come , back because we have skilled labor in the country to do it and they will pay for that. we could be much lower than china or mexico on the energy front. that's the way we create jobs. that is what is in the plan that i put out. that is what i will do as president of united states, help us get jobs. [applause] yes, ma'am. back there. >> thank you. i was wondering if you could speak to, sort of to piggyback off that question regarding , college education and the cost and rising cost. we have two daughters and i'm sure many people here share the same concerns. how can our children get a college education and not be swamped with debt when they graduate? how can we avoid sending all of -- spending all our retirement and remortgage our house? gov. christie: this is an issue that was talked about a lot. i will start were ended on the

college question. mary pat and i have two children in college. we understand what you are talking about. eight or nine weeks ago we got this letter from the university of notre dame. it was great. from father jenkins, president. the first paragraph was something like this -- we want to thank you for the blessing of entrusting your child's soul to us here at the university of notre dame for education over the next four years. from a priest, right? you could hear the music from "rudy" in the background as you are reading that paragraph. [laughter] you can see touchdown jesus, the golden dome the whole thing. , my heart is pounding. of course because he is a priest, the next paragraphe

is the money paragraph. i'm a catholic. i know. the tuition at notre dame will increase only 3.9%. inflation is 1.5%. only 3.9%. here's the kicker -- which he says is the lowest rate of increase in 40 years. think about that. a nearly 4% increase in tuition is the lowest annual increase at notre dame in 40 years. it is insane. let's talk about a few things about how we make college more affordable. first is when our students take out loans, they should be able to renegotiate those loans if rates go down. right now they're not allowed to do that. that is wrong. the federal government is making money off of student loans because they are charging 7% and borrow the money at 2%-3%. that is not right. you renegotiate your mortgage you can refinance your car loan. ,no reason these kids should not be able to refinance their loans

to bring down costs. secondly we should give than the , national service option to work this stuff all. not just military service, but a national service option. it says that if you want to invest a number of years at the graduate, serving your country in various capacities you can , pay off your loan through service. i think that is an option for a lot of kids that they will want to take and give them great experience. in addition to that, especially to this gentleman's question about the job market being tighter. this is a way they can be productive and get that debt off their back. i think the shame of this is that we accept the bills we get from colleges. i said this past week i just paid the bills, right? it is ridiculous, this bill. tuition, room and board, other fees. [laughter] that is what the whole bill says.

and then there's a $61,000 bill. you came in here to molly's tonight, went in and had dinner, if you had a bill for $100 and all the check said was food, $100, you would call the waiter back over and go, excuse me, could you just kind of detail this out for me so i know exactly what each thing costs and what i got to make sure that what you say i got i actually got? we do that for a $100 bill. we don't do that for a $61,000 bill from a college. we except this three-line bill. first they need to detail what they are spending their money on to us. i talked about this in new hampshire. my daughter sarah was with me and i said for instance, what if you found out that 1% of the budget was being spent building a rockclimbing wall? i thought this was a ridiculous thing, right?

my daughter grabs me from behind and says, we already have a rockclimbing wall. i know my daughter. one thing i know is that she is not climbing the rockclimbing wall. i know it. she has a lot of skills, a lot of talent, one of them is not the rock climbing wall. maybe we don't need 40 vice presidents. don't need all these things that colleges have been allowed to do. if they had to tell us the money they spent on, they would be embarrassed and i think we would see those things being reduced. they need to give us a chance to unbundle that bill. goes toy our daughter college and says i am not into , the extracurricular scene. i go to my room and i were, i go -- i work, i go to the library, that is what i do. that is, of course, not true. [laughter] in dad's perfect world, right? you have a lot of kids who commute to school, live at home.

why can't you pay for what you are going to use? why not unbundle it and give a checklist? this will be a great market test on what they've provided. if 85% of the students say i don't want to pay for this, maybe you shouldn't have built it in the first place and maybe you shouldn't build a second one next time. right now what is happening is there is no market forces on college tuition. the reason is us. our daughter goes to notre dame. she loves it. i mean, she loves it. she sends pictures to my phone. dad, look how beautiful the golden dome looks today. look at first down moses. look at touchdown jesus. she sends pictures as she walks around campus. she told me as she came home for christmas break, i have noxious noxiously love my

school. it warms a father's heart. imagine i came to the conclusion that notre dame is not a value anymore. for what i am paying, i'm not getting enough in return. imagine that conversation with my 19-year-old daughter. sarah, i know you love that school, but we think school x is a better value so you are leaving notre dame. i don't know how many of you in this audience have teenage daughters, but i suspect you would agree with me that after the crying and the "i can't believe you're ruining my life" and the stamping of feet and running to her room and slamming of the door, you know that if it is in anyway possible, you and i are sending her back to notre dame because we know she is happy there and we do know she is getting good education. we want for the best for our children, and they know it. they know it. they know they've got us. how would i do this unbundling and make sure it happens in greater detail?

here is the kicker. if you don't do those things, you cannot have students at your school that participate in federal grant and loan problems. if you want taxpayer money, you have to be transparent and give did our parents and our kids choices to lower costs. [applause] that's the way i go about it. unfortunately for you and i, it may be too late. i won't be president for another 17 or 18 months. it may be a little too late. >> thanks, governor christie. i have two very essential questions for the future of our country. number one, what is your favorite bruce springsteen song? [laughter] number two, what is your favorite pizzeria in new jersey? gov. christie: all right. this is someone obviously who

knows things important to new jersey and mean presley. my favorite bruce springsteen song is "thunder road." it is the first song on my favorite album, which is "born to run." if you have access to this song, this would be a new jersey favor you can do for me. go home tonight and listen to "thunder road." it starts right at the very beginning. close your eyes and listen to those first few notes of thunder road and it sounds like a song that is welcoming you in. welcoming you into a new world you will explore over the next eight songs with this guy. oh, heck no. [laughter] there was a request for me to sing. i will do almost anything, as you know and have seen on television a number of times. signing a capella? no. not good for me, not for you. favorite pizzeria, one from my youth and one current.

of my youth is a place called camarades. they made the best pepperoni pizza i ever tasted in my life. my mother used to buy that for us on fridays not on lent. , on lent we couldn't have pepperoni. she said i'm not cooking on fridays. she always got that pizza and we love it. we currently we have a great -- we currently have a great pizza place in our town called dante's. our kids love that pizza. i'm eating less pizza than i used to, unfortunately, but those would be our first two pizzerias. i will say one last thing. bruce springsteen "born to run," , two weeks ago it was the 40th anniversary of the release of "born to run." i can remember being a

12-year-old kid in new jersey and going to sam goody's record store. going in and buying that album and opening it up and seeing this incredible picture of this young bearded guy in a black leather jacket and a big african-american saxophone player and i listened to the songs and the thing that made it different for me was because being from new jersey, we get a little picked on. i listen to those songs. those were songs about people i knew and places i knew. when bruce was later on the cover of "time" and "newsweek," he was no longer our little he -- our little hero. he was a national figure. while bruce and i agree on two -- on maybe one or two issues politically on a really good day, he has become a friend over

time and was incredibly helpful during hurricane sandy. i got to know him during that time and he and his wife and his children are really wonderful people and great representatives of new jersey, even though we belong to different political parties. thank you for asking me about mr. springsteen. [applause] this guy right here. the nike hat. >> good evening, governor. we know our partnership with the global fund to fight aids, malaria, and tuberculosis has a proven track record of success. they save about 100,000 lives a month. we have the resources to end these epidemics. what we lack is the political will. can you, as president, 1/3 of the national fund? gov. christie: yes, i will. i am really proud of the fact that the person who really brought the fight on aids to the world stage in a big way with president george w. bush. i think that if you talk to

leaders in that movement like i have, people like bono from you , a one of the largest voices guy named ray chambers in my state who has been the guy leading the fight in raising money to fight malaria in africa . a very wealthy, successful guy in my state. i'm very proud of the fact that these all republicans that have led this fight. . democrats tend to give this lipservice and republicans tend to write checks. i think that if we can save lives, that we can walk away -- that we can't walk away from that. i don't want to see people dying around the world needlessly. when we take on that fight, is to say that is why we have to