this museum will celebrate that history. because just as the memories of our earliest days have been confined to dusty letters and faded pictures, the time will come when few people remember drinking from a colored water fountain. or boarding a segregated bus. or hearing in person at dr. king's voice boom down from the lincoln memorial. that is what we build here will not just be an achievement for our time, it will be a monument for all time. it will do more than simply keep those memories alive. just like the air and space museum challenged us to set our sights higher or the natural history museum encourages us to look closer or the holocaust museum calls us to fight persecution wherever we find it, this museum should inspire us as well. to stand as proof that the most

important things in life rarely come quickly or easily. it should remind us that although we have yet to reach the mountain top, we cannot stop climbing. and that is why, in moments like this, i think thinkmalia and sasha. i think about my daughters, and i think about your children. millions of visitors who will stand where we stand long after we're gone. and i think about what i want them to experience. i think about what i want them to take away. when our children look at. time and shop -- harriet tubman shop or the airplane flown by tuskegee airmen, i do not want them to be seen as figures somehow larger than life. i want them to see how ordinary americans can do extraordinary

things. how men and women just like them had the courage and determination to right a wrong and make it right. i want my daughters to see the shackles and the shards of glass that flew from the 16th street baptist church and understand that in justice and evil exists in the world, but i also want them to hear louis armstrong and learn about the negro league in read the poems of phyllis wittmann. i want them to appreciate this museum, not just as a record of tragedy, but as a celebration of life. and when future generations hear the songs of pain and progress and struggle and sacrifice, i hope they will not think of them as somehow separate from the larger american story.

i want them to see it as a central and important part of our shared story. a call to seek ourselves in one another. that is the history we will preserve within these walls, the history of the people who, in the words of dr. king, injected new meaning in the dignity into the veins of civilization. may we remember their stories. may we live up to their example. thank you. god bless you. and god bless the united states of america. [applause]

>> watch all of today's groundbreaking tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tonight on c-span, from this year's world economic forum in switch selling, a discussion on leadership roles of women, including the prime minister of thailand and the chief operating officer of facebook. >> as a man gets more powerful and successful, he is better- liked. as a woman gets more powerful and successful, she is less- like. from early childhood through marriage through adolescence, all the way through, we reward men every step of the way for being leaders, for being assertive, for taking risks, for being competitive. and we teach women as young as four, laid-back, be communal. until we change that at the personal level, we cannot change this. we have to go out there and say,

there is an ambition that. we want girls to be as ambitious as our boys. we need our boys to be ambitious to contribute in the home. we need growth to be ambitious and achieve in the work force. >> watched the entire discussion tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. we will have more from the world economic forum this week. thursday, the heads of the world bank and international monetary fund talk about the economic outlook for this year. on friday, a discussion on the economic future of africa. plus, the ceo's of several major corporations talk about their role in the global recovery. >> all the republican candidates are campaigning in arizona today, ahead of tonight's cnn debate in mesa. arizona holds its primary next tuesday, along with michigan. mitt romney held a grass-roots rally in chandler today. we will have that event in about an hour and a 10 minutes. bricks santorum in tucson.

newt gingrich of visiting an elementary school in gilbert. ron paul hold -- hosting a fundraiser in mesa. c-span will have coverage of next week's primaries in arizona and michigan, as well as washington state on march 3. camping coverage continues on super tuesday, march 6, and throughout the month as republicans vote in a number of states and territories. >> it is our cost to dispel the [inaudible] which affords hard decisions in the dilution that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolved itself into a world of harmony if we just do not rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression. and this is hogwash. >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website to see video of "the contenders" who had a

lasting impact on american politics. >> this is also the time to turn away from excessive preoccupation overseas to the rebuilding of our own nation. america must be restored to her proper role in the world. but we can do that only through the recovery of confidence in ourselves. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> republican presidential candidate rick santorum continues campaigning in arizona. ahead of that state's primary next tuesday. the former senator won a presidential straw poll yesterday and then held a town hall meeting in phoenix, where he was joined by his family. this is about an hour and 10 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. wow, thank you very much. thank you.

it is great to be here in arizona. thank you for this great reception. thank you. wow, that was a wonderful speech. why did you guys not elected governor? i mean, he is pretty good. [applause] matt mead thank you. thank you, congressmen. we go way back to the days when all these big kids are very, very little kids. in fact, were not even around. when frank and i first met, none of these kids behind us were even with us. all i had was all i ever really needed in my life, which is my wife karen, a great rock and wonder. [cheers and applause] but we were elected to congress back in 1990, and we're part of a group called the gang of seven. we? pretty tough, don't well, we were pretty tough.

we said we were going to clean up congress. and we did. we had seven freshmen republicans. remember, at that time, we were 37 years in the minority in the house of representatives. and we were a minority that, when i came to washington, d.c., as someone like frank, we were the unlikely candidates to win, the two of us. none of us ever got our phone calls returned when we called to ask for help from washington, d.c. it turned to be a very good thing, because we went there without any baggage, without anybody knowing anybody anything. and we went there. we were able to take on washington, d.c., take on the speaker of the house, take on the chairman of the ways and means committee, a expose corruption and fraud. and all the scandals in the house post office scandal. we took on the entrenched, do you know -- you scratch my back, i scratch yours, way of doing business in washington, d.c.

and we did so, and we were successful, and not only a cleaning up congress, but helping to usher in the first republican majority in the house in 40 years in 1994. [applause] well, by 1994, john was born. that is one of the guys right here, my son john. he is 19. [applause] and then after the election, daniel and sarah maria were born, the other two here behind me. [applause] now, i do not want to have my children and my wife be sort of background for me, so i always say now that you have been introduced, you can go sit and mingle with the rest of the crowd. you do not have to stand behind me, because i am going to talk for probably an hour or two. is that all right? [cheers and applause]

well, it is really truly great to be here. we feel like some good things are happening in arizona for us right now. [applause] be here.ited to we have been thrilled with the reception we are getting. we're looking forward to a debate tomorrow night so we can lay out very clearly that we're here not just to debate. we're here to win arizona on next tuesday. [cheers and applause] well, there is a lot at stake, folks. this is an important election. on and so many friends. and i have been out there for the past -- well, almost a year now, just going out and talking to the american people, doing events like this. where we go and we talk. you hear from me, and then we take questions. we get interaction from the people across america. we go out and get a chance to

meet and greet and talk. you have an opportunity to share your thoughts with people publicly and privately. i can tell you, i have been around politics and presidential politics for a long time. frankly, that is not what goes on in most presidential campaigns. they're very structured and very ordered even speed up there is not a lot of q&a, not a lot of opportunity for real interaction. but the reason i think we're doing well in this campaign is because we are available to the american public. no teleprompter, no written speeches. the opportunity to see what is in here, what is up here. and what is burning down here. [colorado cheers and applause] that is what americans are looking for. they are looking for someone who they can trust, who is authentic.

sometimes i have been told when you do not read off the teleprompter and you do 800 town hall meetings and hundreds of hours of speeches, in all of those recordings, they might find a thing or two and say that he said this but he might mean this, and he loves me for it. the complaint some much about how the candidates are robotic and they just sort of do things. and they complain about it. of course, when they have someone who does not do any of these things, they say, wow, he's really out there. you have to worry about everything he says. no, you do not. because i will defend everything i say. because it comes from here. [cheers and applause]

you need a candidate who will tell you the truth about what is going on in this country and the great opportunity we have to make a huge positive impact, an inflection point in american history. and with an inflection point, of course there are concerns. the reason you're here, the reason that the tea party, thanks be to god, came into being -- [applause] because americans were concerned about what was going to happen to our country if government continued to get bigger. put us in mountains and mountains of debt that now we're over 105% of gdp as our debt right now and growing. as you consider all the debt that the united states has. and you look at the fact that we have government program after government program that is robbing you of your economic freedom, telling you what loans

you can get, what light bulb you can turn on, what health care plan, and what dr. you can see. all of these things, more and more freedom being taken away from you by a group of people who believe that they know better than you. that america is better off. being more control from the top- down, instead of believing in free people and building a great society from the bottom-up. that is the issue in this campaign. that is the fundamental thing at stake. [applause] so my campaign has been about a very simple things. going out there and talking about who we are. we're going to talk about who we are as americans. what in fact made this country the greatest country in the history of the world. why is it that people all around the world look to america? look to america and see a

country that stands up for truth, for freedom. it was a couple of years ago in chicago, and a man was talking about how the world always looked to america to do the right thing. that when someone was in trouble, when forces of evil were moving -- and yes, there are forces of evil in the world. when forces of evil are moving, that america would stand up and called evil by its name. [applause] ronald reagan did that. ronald reagan and did it. he called the soviet union an evil empire, and the media went wild. how dare you? how dare you ascribe terms like

good and evil to regimes, because ronald reagan told the truth. he did not sugarcoat it. he went out and called it the way it was. he went out and promoted the values of our country. when he came to this country just last year and said america is no longer that voice and the world is a scary place because of its, if we are no longer the voice for the weak, for the oppressed, for those who have no one to speak for them sitting in the gulags, as they were during ronald reagan's time, the sitting in chinese prisons today, being oppressed by radical islamists in iran and other countries around the world. then who are we? what do we stand for?

america is a great country because we have values. we have values that -- [applause] that were formed in our founding document, the declaration of independence. and in that document, we said that all of us are created equal. why? because we are equal in the eyes of a creator who gave us and dignity, who gave us weorth, to give us rights. that is what this country was founded on, this basic concept of human rights, a god-given rights. equality of all people. i get a kick out of the left when they come and attack conservatives, saying that they are intolerant. wrong. we're the absolutely most tolerant, the whole foundation of our country is about tolerance.

[cheers and applause] but with that foundational principles, we went out and not only tried to create a good and just society here in america, but we tried to do so at around the world. we were that beacon of hope. we went out and advocated for those things across the world. and people, as a result, were attracted to come here, but also motivated to make changes within the wrong country. and we stood behind them. why? because, yes, a country that is as blessed as ours has a responsibility to promoted because we want to and we know it is a good thing, but it also makes us more secure. it is in our interest that there's more freedom and opportunity, that there are more human rights in this world. that is part of who we are. yet, we have a president who sees america as a country, as he

traveled around the world in his first tour, that he has to apologize for. [boos] but he has to say that we have done a great wrongs. but if you look at his foreign policy, it is consistent with that apology -- every single ally of the united states, at one point or another, this president has turned his back on. every single one. every single enemy, he has in one way or another a piece or tried to explain why america was at fault for doing something in the past. this is a president, in just three short years, has alienated our friends to the point where they do not trust us. and has emboldened our enemies so they do not respect us or

fear us. and america is a much more dangerous place as a result. [applause] on top of that, unilaterally to talk about not just cutting defense, which he has already by half a trillion dollars, but promoting another half a trillion dollars in cuts. and this past week, suggesting that we need to reduce our nuclear arsenal by 80%. this is a president who is trying to manage the decline of american predominance in the world, because he does not believe america should be the dominant force in the world, because he does not see america as a source for good in the world. that, ladies and gentlemen, is not the kind of leader this country deserves. we deserve a leader -- [applause]

we deserve a leader that believes in the great institutions of our country, that believes in the great traditions of our nation, someone who goes out and embraces the those who embrace those concepts like israel, the true democracy in the middle east. [applause] like our friend and steadfast ally, the united kingdom, who has been with us in every conflict, and yet, we have a president now -- and there is a dispute between argentina and the u.k. over islands, and the president has taken the position of being neutral, about a british possession that margaret thatcher went to war to keep possession. who stood by her side? ronald reagan. [applause]

and even south of our border, probably the most -- one of the most egregious acts that is unknown to most people is the way we treated a small country in central america. here is a small country in central america that was striving for democracy, that was following the lead of our country -- isn't that something you want to hear more around the world, the countries are following the lead of america in trying to establish democracy, human rights, and freedoms around the world? [applause] this is a country that made the decision to draft the constitution to make sure that they would not have a dictator like what it is going on in cuba, what is happening in venezuela, ecuador, bolivia, nicaragua, and so many other countries, again as the radical socialists have begun to

exercise and expand their muscle in a very important region of the world for us. and here is a tender, honduras, who stood and drafted a constitution that says we will only have a president for one term, no more. no more. no more dictators. no more coups. we're going to live by a constitution and stick to it. they drafted it so tightly that they said that anyone who even intended to run for election or changed the constitution could be impeached or thrown out of office. in other words, one term. what happened? they elected a president. within a few short years as time came for his term to run up, he became buddies with hugo chavez in venezuela and fidel castro in cuba. guess what he thought about doing and was encouraged to do and helped plan to do, change the constitution so he could run

again, which happened first. they did find out that he was trying to plan a secret election so they could change the constitution. so his party in parliament brought him before the parliament and impeach him under the constitution. the supreme court upheld that, and they evicted him from office and threw him out of the country. to what the democrats, following their constitution did, in honduras. hugo chavez, fidel castro, and barack obama. do you want to understand what signals our country is sending

around the world about the respect for the rule of law, about respect for human rights, about respect for liberty? ladies and gentlemen, what you see going on in this country, what we are all very aware of, with barack obama's exercising government power and control over your life, is exactly what he is doing overseas by siding with two-bit dictators in cuba and venezuela, against folks trying to enforce their constitution in our backyard. ladies and gentlemen, this is a serious election, far more serious than i think most people realize. about not just what is going on in this country but the world that will be a raid against us, and they will be a raid against us in increasing the recess we

withdraw and everyone seeks to find accommodations because america is not there anymore to be behind them. as iran develops a nuclear weapon, whether the other countries in that region going to do since the united states is pretty clear in their unwillingness to stop it? what are the rest of the countries in that region going to do? who are they going to align with? what is that going to been -- going to mean to the economic stability and security to the world? this is the most important election of your lifetime. when i usually talk about that, i have talked about obamacare. i have talked about government trying to run and operate the most important area of your life, which is your health and that of your children and your parents. and with now the government taking that over, we're at a tipping point, not just with what is going on overseas but here in this country. we're at a time when what this

country has always stood for, which is be leaving -- believing, which is believing in you, believing in free people, free markets, communities, small business, borrowing to be big businesses. the opportunity for everyone to achieve in america, to make decisions with a limited government. that is exactly what is at stake in this election. [applause] americans are struggling right now. they are struggling with the yok lk of government. how many small businesses that i have spoken to who say it is a regulatory environment they

have never seen. some say i survived clinton and survived bush. i did not pay attention. i did not notice the difference between the two. and then these last three years have just blown me away. the amount of regulation, government control on everything i am doing. and it is every aspect of business from financial- services to farmers. i am hearing it from everywhere. on top of that, the uncertainty of our government is going to do next or how they interpret existing regulations and laws by whoever the new regulator is to see you. it is almost this coordinated effort to have government micromanage everything that we do in this country. because he believes, and they believe, that they can better run this economy that america can run this economy. probably the worst area is energy.

we are looking at $4 per gallon gasoline again in some areas. we may reach $5 per gallon this summer. you may say that while that might be market conditions, the president of the united states, when he ran for office, talked about how we needed higher prices for gasoline. why? he was concerned about global warming. and we needed to reduce co2 emissions, meaning the you need to drive last. the only way that we can force americans to drive less is to make it expensive for you to drive. and here we have now a systematic plan in place by this president. number one, to reduce the detroit -- petroleum oil and gas in this country. it really went up in america? no thanks to the president of

the united states. not opening up anwar, shutting down federal land corporations, not allowing for permits, go down through the whole list, the keystone pipeline, the president of the united states has done everything possible to shut down energy production. the energy production that did grow as a result of hydraulic cracking in pennsylvania, which i know well, i was there in north dakota, where there is production of oil. the president is threatening to shut down hydraulic fraking, a key that our natural gas prices are 1/5 or less of what they are

wrong world. this is a serious moment in american history. we have a president that is driving the economy through a ditch through over-regulation and government control. [laughter] [applause] on top of that, what is he doing? what is he doing to the federal budget? i looked and i see the young faces. $5 trillion. all because we were going to increase jobs and reduce the unemployment rate to below 6%. how's that working out? >> [unintelligible] >> over $1.20 trillion to stimulate the economy. for a number of months, the

president of the united states is throwing the budget at the brink of bankruptcy. look at us, compared to eastern europe. we are in europe, behind countries being forced into austerity measures. yet the president puts up a budget with another $1 trillion deficit. ladies and gentlemen, this is a litany of problems and concerns in this country. but with them comes a great opportunity. [applause] america is struggling. because we have a president that does not understand the greatness of our country.

he believes the greatness of america lies in discovery. he said it. my -- nine months ago he commented on the paul ryan and budget, talking about these entitlement programs that make up 60% of the budget. when i was born, it made up less than 10% of the budget. talking about all of these programs, the president said that america is a better country because of these commitments. he said that he would go one step further and say that america was not a great country until these commitments. when asked if he believes in american exceptional is and, he said he believed in american exceptional is in the way that the greeks believed in greek exceptionally some. the president of the united states thinks that we are a bunch of homers that like

america best because we are from here. the president does not understand that we like america because we were founded a great country. [applause] we need a president who has a track record and a mission to liberate the free enterprise system and the american spirit again. who wants to reduce the size of government and get it off your back. to cut $5 trillion and spend less money every single year than the year before. that is our plan. that is what we will do. [applause] and we will liberate this economy by reducing the burden and putting in a cash plan that

is simpler, fairer, flatter. it makes it easy. i have to do my own taxes for my own good. i want a flatter tax. [applause] we can reinvigorate the private sector with a corporate tax. it is the highest it has been by april, the highest in the world. 35%. we need to make it a flat, a single rate tax for small businesses. [applause] here is the key to that flat tax. simple. one rate. flat. the smallest business in america at a corporate rate would be the same taxes as the biggest in america. [applause]

that is the level playing field that helps the little guy compete with the big guy. but for manufacturers in this process, we are going to do something different. we are going to say that it is a guy that came from a steel town in western -- western pennsylvania. we continue, as we go to different areas of the country, to see what happened to our manufacturing base. they employed folks at the bottom end of the economic scale, giving them the opportunity to rise to the middle and upper end. why? because making things creates wealth. because making things creates opportunities for people to get skills, upgrade the skills, work their way up the ladder. the average manufacturing jobs

in america pays $20,000 more per year than the average job in america, but we are losing manufacturing in this country. we are over 21%. when i was a kid, it was at 9%. first and foremost, as republicans we have to go out and talk about opportunity. we are the party that says we believe in you, not the party that will take care of you. we believe that you can rise. when we say that, we mean it, right? [applause] we have to create an economy that is available for everyone.

yes, a high-tech worker, a great future for america. having those knowledge based products made here in the united states, by american workers. [applause] i have been criticized by many conservatives as saying that we should create an unequal playing field. a 17.5% tax for all corporations except manufacturers. i say that there is no tax on manufacturers under our plan. the reason that i do it, the reason i do it is because unlike most other businesses in america, manufacturers do not just compete with other manufacturers in america. they compete for those jobs in mexico, china, india, and indonesia. they want those jobs because they know it creates opportunity

and an upwardly mobile workforce. they understand the strategic importance of having things made here. particular at a time that i mentioned earlier, whether it is the radical islamists or folks that want to see less american influence in the world, be it china or russia, or a host of other countries. having been dependent upon a lot of countries for those manufacturing needs, it is not in the manufacturing needs of our country. it is not just about creating economic viability, it is about creating a security by having things be made here in america,

by american workers. [applause] it is also about small-town america. i have travelled this country and been to lots of small towns. almost every one of them is there because there was a crossroads, train tracks, a train depot, a fort, a school, and most often a manufacturing and processing facility. there was something that was produced because of a natural resource. most of them are small, with a little manufacturing and related manufacturers. guess what has happened to most of those towns? most of them have lost their manufacturing towns.

the ones that are not doing as well, the have dollar stores. it is a very different america. as main street -- mainstream values that we like to talk about so much, those families, those kids could not stay in those towns. look at a map of america. those towns are in all of those counties that are read across america. [applause] they were read because they reflected the values of main street. small-town america. as republicans and conservatives, we believe that those values are at the heart and soul of what makes america a successful country. we need to stay with them.

[applause] this is a clear and contrasting message on national security. to solve the over-burdensome government with obama care. anybody ever hear of health savings accounts? you know who the original offer was? your right, it was made. [applause] i was for private sector can sue for german health care before it was cool to be. -- consumer driven private sector health care before it was cool to be. adding the medicare prescription drug program, there was a

dramatic expansion. i fought against the author of hillary care in pennsylvania. as someone who has never supported government mandates and health-care systems. [applause] that is the central economic issue on the table in this race. an issue that we cannot and should not give away in the general election. [applause] and i have not been for bailouts. i was not for the bailout of wall street. i was not for the bailout of detroit. yes, i was at the detroit

economic club last week and i said as much there. government should not be involved in taking over sectors of the economy and using your tax dollars to bailout business. [applause] unfortunately, not every candidate in this race has taken that position. not every candidate can make that claim, to draw the contrast. we need to win this election, ladies and gentlemen. it is not that we will spend more money than barack obama. he will of more money than whoever the republican nominee is. we will need a candidate who has the profile, who can run a successful campaign. who can run money with better ideas and sharper contrast. >> someone who could win states

and key constituencies. making barack obama the issue in this race. do you know a candidate like that? [applause] thank you. all right. all right. half thank you. since you got that question right, i will now take your questions. do we have a microphone on hand? or will we have to shout it out?

we got questions? hand it in. we had several questions, as we are in arizona of course, where we expect the rights of the governor, we had questions about the second amendment and gun ownership. rick santorum has an a-plus rating with the nra. [applause] after 20 years, i can safely say this. this is the real deal. lots of good questions, time is short. i was able to select the three best, the general ones as well. as president, what will you do on day one? to show all americans that you are the people's president, bringing healing and unity to

the government? hopefully we will have an opportunity on the second amendment that is the reason we have a question. we had an issue with gun rights and we worked with the second amendment groups in washington, d.c., to make sure that those rights are protected. we will have no better friend. and this is important. , the right -- the right to bear arms was a 5-4 decision as an amendment to this -- to the constitution. remember justice ginsburg and, remember her from last week? she said she would not recommend

to a new country the american constitution as a template for drafting the constitution. she gave a speech recently where she found out receipt -- found out last year that if there is an opportunity to vote for a conservative to be replaced, there was a long laundry list of cases that she would like to see reviewed. nothing like a justice sending signals to the legal community. they want to run things through the courts. well, she said this. she talked about one case, the heller position. if you read the dissent in heller, that would be the majority.

that would be the individual right to bear arms, where ginsburg made but that is how of course we are. this is an important race. as liberals and conservative justices will be stepping off the court with an opportunity to solidify the majority for the second amendment and, as we have seen from this administration, encroachment from the government of your fundamental freedoms. from what i would do on day one, has said of his campaign. it lets us talk about big things. talking about the direction of this country and who we are. if this is about who is the better economic manager and who

can organize and reduce government a little bit and change things, i am very proud of the fact that we have been out here running and we have not gotten many endorsements from washington, d.c. the press says that none of the people supporting me in washington would support me for president. that is because they know that if i went to washington state, it would not be business as usual. [applause] ha it was the -- it was the one spot in leadership where they gave a conservative voice. i was the rabble rouser, the man that shook things up. as much as they like to tell you they are looking for that in

washington, they are not. i can tell you, as someone who was there, it was the best gift i could have had. seeing how we could easily be cooperated with. day #one, they number two, day number three, calling for it, it is something fundamentally different. instead of pitting straw man against straw man, one group against another, we will talk about the issues of the day. we will face challenges and ask you to join us in working the other to solve these problems. i believe that it can happen. in my town hall meetings, i

gave brusque talks and long answers. even on issues like social security and medicare. you talk about the third rail of politics, i have been riding next to it. we are out there, writing that rail in social security. that is the retirement community in florida. through half of an hour, here are the details, the problems, and possible solutions. i thought that it would be a starting point for changes. i asked if anyone in that room disagreed. to trust the people of this country, that they had a common-sense everyone says that this is such a great -- no, it

is not. we have to trust the american people and quit playing politics every single day. and i do not want to play read my mind, but this indirectly has to do with approving the keystone pipeline on day one. we got some questions that were interesting. it goes to the electability. .hat is yesterday's news we all saw the polls. [applause] it is amazing. even though our numbers are up, the big question is if rick santorum is electable. i find it remarkable that there

juxtaposing it to the other candidates in the race. one way of looking at whether you are electable is, have you been electable in the past? probably a good indication as to success in the future. well, i have run five times. in the file i have run i have run against democratic component -- incumbents in democratic districts, where the only other race on the ballot was the governor candidate, getting 35% of the vote. now, with no support from washington, d.c., i was -- we lost two seats, probably one of them to arizona. we lost two in pennsylvania. some of you know the pittsburgh

area. you know it is a steel town. i represented the steel valley of pittsburgh, or what used to be. because those mills were not there anymore. what there were was shells, poverty's, and hopelessness. that area of the state had not elected a republican to the congress since prior to the great depression. i was faced up against a 24 year democratic incumbent. at the last minute, after looking at how well we were doing, he got out of the race. we won that race in a year that george bush got 29% in that district. i got 16%. i decided to take on another democratic incumbent for the senate, 1994. two of them lost this time.

james carville, two years after bill clinton. we went up against the gatt -- the best in a state that had more democrats than republicans, and were able to win. all this time i am voting as a strong, principled conservative. the weekly standard did a review of this. citizens against government waste, the fiscal watchdog group of washington, has made the conclusion that given the district and state that represented, i was the most strong fiscal conservative in the senate for the 12 years i was there. [applause]

i was the only conservative to win in a state that george bush lost. i lost in 2006, but as our previous speaker would tell you, 2006 was lousy. we lost 23 of 33 senate races. we lost just about everything. but if you want to see who is the most electable, let's look at who was. the other people in this race, congressman that represented other districts in the state, one of them barely won reelection. governor romney has one as a liberal moderate and a conservative. [laughter] [applause] in his last three races, he ran to the left of ted kennedy, so try getting their sunday. [laughter]

he ran as a moderate for governor and supported planned parenthood and a host of other liberal groups. and then he ran as a conservative when he decided to run for president. i did not change my position as ever. [applause] [applause] and if you want to see you can win, see who can wind up running as a conservative. i assume whoever wins the nomination will run as a conservative. maybe they won't. i can assure you i will and i will win in the states that matter to win this election. [applause]

a handful of swing states. we put pennsylvania in play. ohio, michigan, indiana, wisconsin -- a guy talking about manufacturing job and grew up in a steel town is exactly the kind of candidate that was able to win those districts. why? we had someone on the republican ticket who shared their values and understand where they grew up, who lived of that life and understands we need a republican party that is out there providing opportunities for everybody in america, not just those on wall street. [applause] >> the very last question, as

the third ranking republican leader in the late said that, what do you regard as your signature of legislative achievement? is welfare reform the only significant reform in our lifetime? is it your farsighted legislation imposing sanctions on that syria and iran? that is my question. before we conclude, we have literature in the back. we have one week to go. risk is surging. he has the momentum. the polls show him up within striking distance. we need you to get out and work over the next week. talk to your families, your friends and neighbors. every other arizona resident that you know and i urge them, implore them to vote for rick and stress how important this is. we can help him carry arizona

and send a message to the rest of the country. [applause] >> your contributions are kindly welcome on the way out. there is a clearly marked box. last question -- what can you do as a government leader, and we hope our president, our leader in chief, do to encourage more individual responsibility, reduce individual dependency on government and reduce government expenditures? >> i say this all the time -- you cannot have limited government unless you have strong families and strong communities in america. if you don't have the foundation

of our country -- when people talk about how we are going to reduce spending, one of the reasons government spending is up as we have people who want to do more and more and take more control. there are things we can do right away like appeal -- repeal obamacare, which we will do on day one. 2 but one of the dynamics we have to do is take these means tested entitlement programs, which in many respects create perverse incentives for people. i was talking to a man in north dakota the other day who said he is taking care of his wife and she has increased health needs. he is working and providing and taking care of her. they went in to see if they could take care for a government

worker says if you divorce her, she will be covered. you should divorce her ad she can get coverage under medicaid. doing government that is things that are fundamentally unsound. we are promoting the destruction of families and doing things under obamacare -- your taxes go up if you get married and if you cohabitate, they go down. program after program after program, all of these perverse incentives to do things that are not in the best interest of stable, healthy families. one of the things we need to do is look at these government programs. we need to take these means tested programs like food stamps

and medicaid and do what we did with welfare. i wrote it when i was in the house and it was the only huge successful reform. it wasn't successful just because it saved a lot of money. it saved a lot of money at the federal level and saved more at the state level. it was successful because people went back to work. we held this ideal up -- doing battle with daniel patrick moynihan and ted kennedy, talking about how poverty is not a disability, that you have to believe in all human potential. [applause] creating this air of dependency is destruction of the human nature and undermines your ability to rise in society.

i get criticized all the time, suggesting it is actually ok if government is not there all the time and sometimes people have to struggle and fight through things if they want to succeed in america. struggle is not a bad thing. we all struggle. [applause] to allow people the dignity of succeeding and failing and picking up from your failures. failure is not the end of the road, it's the beginning of a new road. that is what we have to believe in america. the best way to do that is to take these government programs and to what we did with welfare. a 10% cap -- frees them for five years and send them to the

states with two provisos. first, a work requirement and time limit on all of these benefits. use them as a transitional programs. [applause] that is not the case when someone is elderly or disabled, but for able-bodied people -- we have seen an explosion of non- direct payments, food stamps and others -- we need to be there, but it is going to be a helping hand up, not a permanent pendants. that is how we change individual responsibility. [applause] we will save tens and hundreds of billions of dollars over time, but more importantly, we will save lives as people realize their potential and lived dreams that make them productive citizens in our

economy. [applause] this campaign is about that positive vision. everything we are going to do, whether it is national security, even changing and looking at how we save money in entitlement programs, we're going to look not at drudgery and punishment, not as pain, but the opportunity to have a rebirth in america of responsibility, of taking care of themselves and their families in building stronger families and communities. we have to paint a vision of who we are, to rise and get educational opportunities by transforming the education system. i was criticized on a sunday showed the other day when i said we need to get the federal

government and state government out of education. [applause] they asked if that meant i was against public education. i am for parental control of public education. [applause] we need an education system that customizes and educational experience for every child. i have seven children and they all learned differently and have different needs. they'll do better in different studies. can you imagine a workplace today if you were a manufacturer and you produced one product and that was it? whether they like it or not, you get one color of a car. how well with your business do? he would be out of business in a minute. plant in to the bmw

south carolina and every one of those cars has an order. they are all custom made, every one of them. if you could have an assembly line that's custom-made down to the very detail, why can we not build an education custom-made for every child in america? [applause] these are the kind of dynamic changes i think america is longing for. someone who has a vision, that believes in you. in 2008, america got all excited because we were in an economic crisis and we were looking for someone we could believe in. hope and change that could make a big difference in our lives and this man could transform our country and make life better for us.

now, americans have figured out that what made america great was not president's we could believe in, but presidents who believed in you. [applause] thank you very much. god bless you, god bless america. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> the home schooling community here love you.

>> i would love to come work for your campaign. >> thank you. >> thank you very much.

>> rick santorum, yesterday in phoenix. all of the gop candidates campaigning in arizona today ahead of tonight's debate. newt gingrich is visiting an elementary school and ron paul is hosting a fund-raiser. mitt romney had a grassroots rally earlier today and countered president obama's corporate tax proposal, saying he wants a 20% across-the-board tax cut, reducing the tax rate of the wealthiest americans. this is about 45 minutes. >> i think this one is working. >> welcome to ground zero right here in chandler, arizona.

i wanted to pass on a message. i know we have a lot of our youth here today. they are very nervous about their country. they do not want us to keep dumping our debt on their back. we send them to our borders and pass laws to push them back, and then we give them our bill. i do not want to give our children my bill any more. we have a young man fighting out here for our children. he has come a long way to reach out to arizona, the most conservative state in america. [cheers and applause] the most. i know this is true because we have been through these times together. the speaker of the house of the state of arizona, we have cut

this government and reduced your taxes. no one has defended the border more than the state of arizona. [cheers and applause] i want to introduce to you another great conservative from right here. would you please welcome with me, congressman jeff flake. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. i am glad to be here with my wife. we have five children as well. this is mitt romney country right here in arizona. [cheers and applause] let me tell you why i support mitt romney. over the last three and a half years, we have watched this country pile on $5 trillion of

new debt. we have tried to convince this president as hard as we can as republicans in washington to stop this spending and borrowing from our kids and grandkids, but we cannot convince him. we have sat by while we have seen regulations pile onto this country. we have tried to convince this president this is not the way to go. the great thing is about the fourth year of a four-year term, you do not have to convince the president of anything anymore. you just have to replace him. [cheers and applause] so, when this president proposes to have another deficit of $1.4 trillion, what do we need to do? replace him!

when this president gives hundreds of millions of dollars to companies like solyndra and proposes to do more things like that, what do we need to do? when this president proposes to have new regulations that will make it difficult to climb out of this recession, we do not need to convince him. what do we need to do? >> replace him! >> we need somebody in this country who can turn it around. we need a turnaround. when the winter olympics needed somebody who needed to fix the situation, who did they turn to? mitt romney. when the state of massachusetts faced a huge debt and had to have somebody turn that state around, who did they turn to? >> mitt romney! >> when our country is deep in debt, $6 trillion, who do we

need to turn this country around? >> mitt romney! >> this is arizona's birthday. we are 100 years old this year. we had the good fortune to have the birthday present of being able to wake up in this state every day, to be able to have 77-degree weather today in february. to be in a state where the beauty of the sunset is only eclipsed by the sunrise the next morning. we can not share that all with the rest of the country. but one thing we can do is have an election here six months from now, and we can put mitt romney over the top. [cheers and applause] by putting a fiscal conservative like mitt romney over the top, we can propel him

to the republican nomination for the republican party and then on to the white house. [cheers and applause] please join me in welcoming the next president of the united states, mitt romney and his wife. [cheers and applause]

>> thank you. how many students are from tri- city christian? thank you for letting me use your school. i brought a friend with me. when i was in high school, there was a sophomore who was very attractive. i went to a party and she came with someone else. i went to the guy that she came with and i said i live closer to her than you do. can i give her a ride home for

you? [laughter] we have been going steady ever since. my girlfriend, ann romney. [cheers and applause] >> hi. i love seeing so many students. you are wearing the school shirt and it looks great. you better watch out. whoever you date in high school, you may end up marrying. we have been married for 32 years and have five married sons and 16 grandchildren. i will tell you the greatest joy i have is being a grandmother. the best part of it is watching my grandchildren misbehave. i get the biggest kick out of it. i think the boys deserve every minute of stress. it is great to have had mitt reminding me what i was doing

was more important than what he was doing. but this time, he has a big job ahead of him. i will be supporting him and helping him and being by his side and knowing that the decisions he will be making are going to be hard ones. i think character matters. i think it is important to know the kind of life this man has led. thank you all for coming out today. let's give him a good welcome. [cheers and applause] >> mr. speaker and congressman, thank you for introducing us. i know you could wish she could speak the whole time. i am going to talk about being even younger than high school.

i remember going to kindergarten. my first class was in hampton school in detroit, michigan. i was about five years old. there were about 35 or 40 kids in the classroom. my guess is the parents thought their children's future was going to be bright and prosperous. they believed in the promise of america. they believed if their kids were taught the right values and they were able to get an education and they worked hard, they could have a prosperous and secure home. that has been the promise of america from the very beginning. by hard work and education and good values, that our future will be bright, and our kids' future will be brighter than the lives that we lived. over the last few years, that promise has been broken for a lot of americans.

we have about 24 million americans who are out of work or have stopped looking for work or have part-time jobs and they need to work full-time. the president said he would turn this economy around in three years. he broke that promise. we are here to collect. [cheers and applause] he said if we let him borrow $787 billion, which you guys will pay for, he said if we let him borrow $787 billion, he would hold unemployment below 8%. 36 months later, 36 straight months of unemployment above 8%. it is time for him to go. [cheers and applause]

he said he would cut the deficit in half. he has doubled it. he has doubled it. he said that medicare and social security were financially insolvent and needed to be fixed. he has not made any proposals to fix it. this is a president who has broken the promises he has made. i believe in america and the right course of america. i believe it is to restore the principles that made america the hope of the earth. young people coming out of high school, college, they are finding they cannot get jobs. dick armey said something interesting. he said the american dream is getting your kids out of your home. [laughter] we have too many kids that come out of high school or college and cannot find work. this president has no plan to turn around the economy, no

plan to eliminate the deficit, no plan to fix medicare or social security. he is out of ideas, he is out of excuses, and in 2012, we will put him out of the white house. [cheers and applause] several months ago, i put this little book out. this book is called "believe in america." i laid out in here the things i would do to get america's economy going again. i said in here that there were parts that had to come together. it needs to be brought together as a whole. i laid out a number of things i would do. ideas on entitlement reform. i laid out ideas about reducing the deficit.

i also laid out some plans for how we get our economy growing again and creating some jobs. i said -- i had some immediate plans up front but i wanted to put in place a tax plan that created more growth that was simpler, flatter, and fairer. i want to describe to you today what i am going to do to get america's promise restored in this country. i have to reform entitlements to make sure that we can keep medicare and social security solvent. i have to cut our spending and deficits. we are spending too much. [cheers and applause] i am going to take the federal spending budget line by line and ask this question. can we afford this program? if we cannot pay for it, is this program so essential that it is worth borrowing money from

china to pay for it? if not, i will get rid of it. [cheers and applause] with regards to our tax policy and growth, there are a couple of things i would like to announce. i am going to lower rates across the board for all americans by 20%. [cheers and applause] and in order to limit any impact on the deficit, because i do not want to add to the deficit, and to make sure we continue to have productivity, i am going to limit the deductions and the deductions particularly for high income folks. for middle income families, the deductibility of home mortgage interest and charitable contributions will continue, but for high income folks, we are going to cut back on that so

we make sure the top 1% pay their fair share or more. middle income americans have been hurt by this obama economy. [cheers and applause] let me note. this has to be combined with those other two things i mentioned. we have to have more jobs, less debt, and smaller government. they go together. you cannot do one of those things by itself. you have to do others to restore the american promise. this idea of lowering our marginal tax rates across the board -- why do that by the way? just to give more money to people to spend? there is another reason. by lowering those rates, we help businesses that pay at the

individual tax rate to have more money so they can hire more people and pay higher wages. do you know how many people work at companies that are taxed at the individual rate? about 55% of american workers. we want those businesses to grow and thrive and be successful. president obama's plan is to raise taxes on those enterprises. my plan is to lower it by 20% and put more people back to work. [cheers and applause] my plan is part of the economy -- i do not want to add to the deficit. that is why i cut a number of programs to make sure we get america on track to get a balanced budget. we have to make sure that medicare and social security are preserved. it is one whole package. in washington, they do not think like that.

if you are in the business world or in your home, you do not have one person thinking about how much money comes in the door and one person thinking about how much you spend. if you cannot balance budgets, you are out of business. if you cannot balance your budget at home, you will be out of your home at some point. in the government, you have committee's thinking about spending and others thinking about taxing. we have to lower our spending, preserve our long-term viability by fixing our entitlements to restore the american dream. that is exactly what i will get done. [cheers and applause] you are going to hear me say time and time again. more jobs, less debt, small government. more jobs, less debt, smaller

government. we have a very different course set out in front of us. the president would take us in one direction. i would take us in a different one. his plan is very simple. he wants to raise taxes. that will kill jobs in this country. he is proposing a corporate tax plan that is raising taxes on businesses by hundreds of billions of dollars. he is raising taxes on these companies that pay taxes at individual rates. raising taxes will kill jobs. my plan will create jobs. that is the difference between the two of us. [cheers and applause] he is comfortable with spending more than we take in by about a trillion dollars a year. if i am president, i will cut

spending, cap spending, and finally get us a balanced budget. [cheers and applause] he likes the idea of the government managing our health care system, telling you what kind of insurance, covered, and treatment you can have. if i am president, i will repeal obamacare. [cheers and applause] if he is reelected, he will continue to put the hold on natural gas, coal, and oil. if i am president, i will get that oil from canada. [cheers and applause] this president wants to fundamentally transform america

into something that we are not. i want to restore to america at the principles that made us the strongest nation on earth. i will do so with your help. this is a very critical time for us. it is the choice about what kind of america we are going to enjoy. are we going to become like the european social welfare state with high unemployment, high debt, and low job growth? i love the founding document of america. they are the blueprint for our way forward. [cheers and applause] the declaration of independence had extraordinary insight that changed the world. it said these things, among others, that the creator had it in doubt us with our rights. -- endowed us with our rights. [cheers and applause]

that among those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. yet in this nation, we would be free to pursue happiness as we choose, rather than the government telling us how to live our lives or be limited by the circumstance of birth. this is the land of opportunity. my view is to restore the printable. the ability of americans to live a life of opportunity is what makes us who we are. america became a place where all of the pioneers and innovators of the world wanted to come. this is the land of opportunity. they came here by the millions. this president is taking that. i do not think he understands the power of free people and

enterprise. [cheers and applause] i know we face huge challenges. we are up to the challenge. the american people are the most patriotic people in the world. we place our hands over our hearts during the singing of the national anthem. we love our country. "america the beautiful." "for amber waves of grain." when i was a boy, my parents took me around to the national parks. i fell in love with the land. over the years, i fell in love with the people. there is another version of that song.

do we have at any veterans here or members of the armed services? please raise your hand. [cheers and applause] there is another verse. "beautiful for patriot dream that sees beyond the years." when they wrote the declaration of independence and drafted the constitution, they were not just waiting for their time. they saw beyond their years. i want to restore those principles and america's promise. i will get america strong again. i am going to do it with your help. thank you so much. [cheers and applause]

♪

♪ ♪

>> the debate tonight is in mesa, arizona. all the candidates were in arizona tonight. ron paul was holding a fund- raiser in mesa. ended gingrich was visiting a school.mentary >> tonight, from this year's world economic forum and of those -- in davos, leadership roles of women. >> as a man gets more powerful, he gets a better life.

as a woman gets more successful, she is less light. it we reward men every step of the way for being a leader and for being conservative in taking risks. we teach women as young as four years old to lay back, and until we change that at a personal level, we can not change it. we have to go out there and say there is an ambition gap. we need our boys to contribute at home. we need our girls to be contributing in the work force. >> watched the entire discussion tonight at 8:00 eastern. we will have more this week thursday at the international monetary fund to talk about the economic outlook for this year. on friday, the economic future of africa.

>> president obama proposed today to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% 238%. he said it held company may jobs overseas. manufacturers would receive incentives so that their tax rate could be even lower. jay carney responded to numerous questions about the plant. this is just under one hour. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thanks for coming to the white house for your daily briefing. >> new glasses -- again? >> you think these are new? >> yeah. >> maybe. >> did you leave them on the bumper again?

>> not this time. not this time. these could be old, they could be new. before i get started i wanted, on a serious note, to say something about two journalists who were killed yesterday in syria. as you know, last week i, aboard air force one, said something about anthony shadid, who died last week in syria. these tragic deaths underscore something that i think we all -- all of us in this room, since we participate in -- i did once and you do now -- in this profession -- it's a reminder of the incredible risk that journalists take -- marie colvin, anthony shadid, and the french photojournalist who was killed yesterday as well -- in order to bring the truth about what's happening in a country like syria to those of us at home and in countries around the world. and our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of those journalists. and it's a reminder, too, that

the victims are many, and overwhelmingly, in this case, they are innocent syrian civilians. the brutality of the assad regime becomes ever more apparent each day -- as each day goes by. so i just wanted to mention that -- and go to questions. julie. >> thank you. sticking with syria, you said yesterday that international action is needed before the situation in syria becomes too chaotic. but given this latest incident and the continued shelling in syria, how much more chaotic can things get? what exactly is the international community waiting for at this point? >> well, the international community has acted through the resolution passed by the united nations general assembly. unfortunately, russia and china vetoed a resolution that would have passed through the security council. but there is overwhelming international support for the condemnation of assad and his regime's atrocities and actions, and overwhelming

support for the syrian people. there's an ever-growing coalition of nations, if you will, who are part of the "friends of syria" that the united states is part of, and together we will continue to enhance the pressure on assad, continue to help the opposition become more functional, continue to work to bring humanitarian assistance to the syrian people, and continue to call on the international community collectively to take greater action to pressure assad and to force him to relinquish power so that the syrian people can have the democratic future that they deserve. >> when you talk about helping the opposition, the main opposition group said today that foreign military intervention may be necessary in order for humanitarian aid to make it into syria. i know you said yesterday that humanitarian aid is needed. would the u. s. support foreign military intervention for the purpose of getting humanitarian aid into

syria? >> well, i think there's a useful comparative here to libya. i'm often asked this question in the -- using that comparison. and what we had in libya when there was outside military intervention was a unified international community, a call for intervention by the libyan people, the prospect of an immediate assault by qaddafi's forces on an entire city, benghazi, and the possibility that international military action could have -- could halt that and could limit or prevent the deaths of many, many thousands of libyans. each country in the region where we have had this kind of unrest is different, and certainly syria is different from libya in many of those particulars that i just laid out. we will work with the

international community to provide humanitarian assistance. we will continue to press the international community to condemn assad and his actions, and to take action to further pressure and sanction his regime. right now -- and i was asked this yesterday, and i just want to make clear that we do not believe that adding to the militarization of syria is the right approach. we believe that the right approach is for the international community to speak with one voice to pressure assad and get him to relinquish power and to cease the brutal assault on his own people. >> does that apply also to military intervention for the purpose of -- >> well, right now we believe that the appropriate action is a diplomatic, economic approach, the likes of which we're taking. >> if i could switch briefly over to the corporate tax proposal -- when the president has rolled out other proposals from his state of the union address, he's been out front in doing so, but today's proposal came from the treasury department and secretary geithner. why not have the president out

front? why put this distance between he and the proposal today? >> well, i certainly disagree that there is distance between the president and his secretary of the treasury. tim geithner has developed this proposal, working with his team and the economic team here in the white house. the president -- you should have by now -- if not, you'll have it momentarily -- has put out a full statement laying out why he believes this corporate tax reform that he and his administration is putting forward today is so important, why it fits into his overall blueprint for an "america built to last," where everyone gets a fair shot and plays by the same rules. so the president is very committed to corporate tax reform, as he made clear at the state of the union address last year in 2011. and he believes that this is an area where an opportunity exists, an opportunity to disprove the conventional wisdom that nothing can get done

in an election year between a white house held by one party and a congress largely controlled by the other. after all, there is a fair amount of consensus that simplifying the corporate tax code is a good idea, that broadening the base and lowering the rate is a good idea. the president has put forward a proposal that does that, that in doing that eliminates unnecessary and expensive subsidies and carved-out special provisions for corporations like oil and gas companies that don't need them, that eliminates the carried interest rule that allows hedge fund managers and private equity investors to -- or managers -- to pay a far lower tax rate on their income than firefighters and teachers -- and everyone probably in this room -- and thereby creates a corporate tax code that allows american businesses to be more competitive globally, that incentivizes manufacturing in the united states, that takes

away the incentive for companies to relocate overseas and reverses that and creates incentives for companies to insource again in the united states -- a trend the president believes is very important to our economic future. so he's very supportive of this proposal and hopes that congress will see in this an opportunity to prove the critics wrong, to show that we can get things done this year for the american people. reuters. >> thank you, jay. picking up on the discussion of gas prices from yesterday, is it fair for the american voter or the american public to blame any president -- in this case, this president and his administration -- when gas prices start going up so high? >> look, i think this president, as i said yesterday, fully appreciates the impact of

higher gas prices on average americans trying to make ends meet. he talked about that yesterday in the event where he discussed the extension of the payroll tax cut. one of the reasons in both 2011 and now this year that cutting the payroll tax for 160 million americans is so important is because it gives the average american family an extra $40 per paycheck, close to $1,000 per year, to pay for things like gasoline, to fill up their tanks. so he's very aware of the impact that it has and fully understands the anxiety it creates. and he understood that when he was running for president back in 2008 when there was a spike in the price of oil. there has since been, as you know, last year and again this

year -- this is a recurrent problem and it's a problem that reinforces the need that he identified back when he was a candidate for a comprehensive energy strategy, one that takes an all-of-the-above approach to the development of our energy -- sources of energy, one that insists that we can safely and responsibly expand our domestic oil and gas production, which he has. every year since he's been president, we've increased our oil and gas production. every year since he's been president, we've decreased our reliance on foreign oil imports. and certainly, every year since he's been president, he has made a focus of the importance of investing in alternative energy technology, because that combination is the one that will build a foundation for energy security in the future, so that we are not as vulnerable to the kinds of price shocks that we get when oil climbs, as it is now.

and as i said yesterday, we need to do the things that we can control to insulate ourselves from the things that we can't. and that includes oil prices that are going up in spite of the fact that domestic oil production is going up, oil prices that are going up globally in spite of the fact that the president has made clear -- put in place policies that will dramatically expand the amount of exploration in the gulf of mexico, will expand the amount of exploration in alaska, will expand the amount of natural gas production here in the united states. and yet, these prices are going up. and that tells you that there are other things beyond our control, like unrest in the middle east, or other factors like the growth of emerging countries such as china and india. so in that kind of environment, in that kind of world, we need to do everything we can here at home to insulate ourselves from these price shocks. and that's what the president's

been doing since he took office. >> does the president accept any responsibility for the fact that the prices are going up, especially -- or has any response to things -- >> well, the president accepts responsibility that he identified the next president should accept back in 2008, which is the need to develop a comprehensive energy policy that protects americans in the long run from these kinds of situations, and that makes america more secure and energy independent. and that's the policy he's proposed. i think that if you're suggesting that there's responsibility for price hikes in the global -- i mean, a rise in the global price of oil, it's certainly not because of anything he hasn't done to expand domestic oil and gas production, because he has done -- taken significant action to

expand american gas and oil production. and he will continue to do that. he will continue to do that as he takes action to, for example, as i mentioned yesterday, allow for the first nuclear reactor to be built in this country in 30 years, to increase our investments in alternative energy like biodiesel and wind and solar. i mean he's an all-of-the-above -- his is an all-of-the-above approach, and you'll hear a lot about that from him in coming days and weeks. >> but if a candidate like rick santorum says the reason these things are going -- these prices are going up is because of the president's dedication to the radical environmentalist movement -- >> again, i think it's incumbent upon those who report on random statements by politicians seeking office to compare them to the facts, and the facts are as i've stated. oil and gas production in the

united states has risen every year since the president has been in office. oil production is now higher than it's been in eight years. and this president is taking action to ensure that it continues to go up. not least -- and i think it's important to mention, and i don't know where various candidates for office are on this issue, but the president last year through an agreement with major automobile manufacturers have put into effect enhanced fuel-efficiency standards that will save american families $1. 7 trillion at the pump, and cut oil consumption by 12 billion -- i think yesterday i said 12 million because 12 billion sounded like so much, and it is. and the fact is that action alone did more to enhance our long-term energy independence than almost anything any president could do. yes. >> in the briefing on the tax proposal, secretary geithner said that they're using this proposal today to move the process along, which, as you know, can take time. and he said it's designed so corporate tax reform could be done alone, but it might have to be done with individual tax

reform, which will come after the presidential election. given that, what is your timeframe for really getting this done? >> well, i would simply agree with secretary geithner that there is an opportunity here to do it alone or singularly with just corporate tax reform. the president has put forward a very specific framework of his approach -- that explains his approach to corporate reform. there is an opportunity, as i just said, because of apparent interest by both democrats and republicans to reform our corporate tax code, to take action now. there's no reason why congress couldn't take this up. it is also the case that if congress were to feel itself particularly bullish about the possibility of bipartisan cooperation that they could take up individual tax reform. and the president's principles on individual tax reform are pretty clear as well. so there is -- it's absolutely

the case that you could do this by itself or you could do it with individual tax reform. we would welcome action by congress, in accordance with the president's principles, in either case. >> so what is the president himself doing to encourage the congress to feel bullish about bipartisan progress? >> well, i think secretary geithner himself, who is obviously the president's treasury secretary, has already spoken with leaders in congress about this. >> but the president hasn't? or has he? >> well, i don't have any calls or conversations of the president to report, but i'm sure the president will be having these discussions. and, look, if there is interest in pursuing this corporate tax reform plan by republicans and democrats in congress, the president is very interested in doing that. and that goes along -- that also applies to individual tax reform. so i think as secretary geithner made clear, he's already begun this conversation with republicans and democrats on the hill with regards to corporate tax reform. and we hope that conversation continues and that we can

produce a result for the american people and for american businesses that will have -- that will create the result of a lower tax rate for american businesses that will -- and that will make them more competitive, a broader base to ensure that this reform doesn't add a dime to the deficit, and a situation where the american manufacturing sector, and in particular, the advanced manufacturing sector, is further incentivized to grow, and where small businesses are -- where the environment is made easier for small businesses to deal with the tax code by simplifying the tax code for them, allowing them to, for example, expense up to $1 million. and there are a variety of other measures that are part of this corporate tax reform that would make american businesses much more competitive. >> have you gotten any feedback from the ceos that the administration talks to about the plan already today that you can share with us? >> i don't have anything to share with you. i think that we believe that the reception so far has been positive and will be positive because it does what so many people say is important to do, which is -- and this is democrats and republicans -- which is lower the rate, broaden the base, eliminate the underbrush of unnecessary

subsidies and loopholes and special provisions that complicate the tax code and basically have the taxpayer subsidizing oil and gas companies, for example, which enjoyed record profits last year and certainly seem to be on track to enjoy significant profits this year and don't need those kinds of subsidies. that money can then be used to pay for an action that would lower the rates for everybody. yes, jake. >> the white house keeps praising these journalists who are -- who have been killed >> i don't know about "keeps." i think -- >> you've commented, vice president biden did it in a statement. how does that square with the fact that this administration has been so aggressively trying

to stop aggressive journalism in the united states by using the espionage act to take whistleblowers to court? you're currently -- i think that you've evoked it the sixth time -- and before the obama administration it had only been used three times in history. this is the sixth time you're suing a cia officer for allegedly providing information in 2009 about cia torture. certainly that's something that's in the public interest of the united states, his administration is taking this person to court. there just seems to be a disconnect here. you want aggressive journalism abroad -- you just don't want it in the united states. >> well, i would hesitate to speak to any particular case for obvious reasons and i would refer you to the department of justice for more on that. i think that we absolutely honor and praise the bravery of reporters who are placing themselves in extremely dangerous situations in order to bring the story of oppression and brutality to the

world. i think that is commendable and it's certainly worth noting by us. and as somebody who knew both anthony and marie, i particularly appreciate what they did to bring that story to the american people. as for other cases, again, without addressing any specific case, i think that there are issues here that involve highly-sensitive, classified information, and i think that those are -- divulging that kind of information is a serious issue and always has been. >> so the truth should come out abroad, it shouldn't come out here? >> well, that's not at all what i'm saying, jake, and you know it's not. again i can't specific-- >> well, that's what the justice

department is doing. >> well, you're making a judgment about a broad array of cases and i can't address those specifically. >> it's a judgment that a lot of whistleblowers organizations and good government groups are making as well. >> it's not one that i'm going to make. yes, ed. >> can we go back to gas prices because i wanted to ask about what -- the president's case seems to be to deal with this issue now is we've really increased oil production. when you go back to 2008, the president repeatedly mocked senator mccain and this whole "drill here, drill now," "drill, baby, drill" -- all of that was mocked, that it was a dumb idea. now, you're holding it up as a really great idea. how do you square those two? >> well, ed, there's a distinction here that you're missing. the president's approach has been to responsibly increase domestic oil and gas production. what he has never said, and what i attempted, i thought, to appropriately mock yesterday, was the idea that there are magic solutions, that you can put forward a proposal to cut the price at the pump in half on a piece of paper with a couple of magic beans. it's just not realistic. the fact is oil and gas production in this country has been increasing, and even as it

has been increasing the price of oil has been going up globally. that tells you that there are factors that are not entirely within our control. and putting forward to the american people that simply by drilling more you're going to resolve this problem for the long term is not being honest with the american people. that's why you need a comprehensive energy strategy. that's why you need an all-of- the-above approach. that's why you need to invest in clean energy technologies, as well as open up millions of acres -- of new acres in the gulf of mexico to exploration, as well as allow for the building and permitting of the first nuclear reactor in this country in 30 years. you need to do it all. and that's the only approach that is responsible. and to suggest to americans that there is some other way, that you can wave a magic wand and cut oil prices and cut gas prices, is simply not treating the american people with the kind of respect they deserve -- because they know better.

>> he didn't mock john mccain in 2008 on this issue? he didn't repeatedly say -- >> i didn't say that. i said that, then and now, the president believed that there is not -- that drilling alone was the way to resolve our energy security problems. it's not, as evidenced by the fact that domestic oil and gas production has increased every year that he's been in office, and yet oil prices -- we experience these spikes in oil prices. and i think that tells you that the way to insulate ourselves, the way to insulate the american people from these kind of price shocks, is to increase our energy independence, to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, to increase our capacity for alternative energy production as well as traditional fossil fuel production. and that's the approach the president's taking. but it's not -- drilling alone

will not solve this problem. that was true in 2008, it's true in 2012. >> last thing. in '08 and then throughout his presidency, he's talked about a comprehensive plan, as you mentioned. but at the end of last year, when white house officials were talking about the 2012 agenda, it was suggested that the only must-pass legislation -- you were talking about this earlier -- by a democratic white house working with a republican house -- the only real must-pass was the payroll tax cut extension. so how can you now say that dealing with an energy plan now is something the president really wants to do, when in december you weren't talking about it? >> well, that's -- he has been talking about this consistently since he was sworn into office. and the point about extending the payroll tax cut was the fact that congress, which had not shown a great deal of interest -- republicans -- in bipartisan cooperation on difficult issues, that the one issue that we felt confident was a must-do piece for them, as well as us, because of the political price they would pay for raising taxes on 160 million americans, was extending the payroll tax cut. but we fully hope and expect that congress will do more than

that. and we look forward to congress taking action on the president's refinance proposal which could put up to $3,000 in the pockets of average, responsible american homeowners, taking action on an infrastructure investment bill that could put hundreds of thousands of construction workers back to work and allow for the building of -- rebuilding of our infrastructure in this country -- roads, bridges, schools, highways, ports, and taking action to, if they felt really emboldened by this bipartisan potential, putting teachers back to work, taking action on some of the other provisions in the american jobs act, as well as corporate tax reform, as well as measures that would enhance our energy security. the point is, is that the sky is the limit here if congress is willing to work with this administration, if democrats and republicans are willing to work together on the hill. all the way in the back, yes, ma'am.

nice to see you. welcome. >> thank you. i would like to know if you know of any educational initiatives the president has in place to better prepare students for success at college or university level? >> well, the president has pursued since he took office comprehensive education reform. race to the top has been one of the unheralded -- by the media largely -- bipartisan successes that this president has pushed forward, working with the secretary of education. he has also expanded access to pell grants to allow for more americans to attend college, and he will push forward with broad education initiatives. because if you may remember -- i know folks in this room do -- his state of the union address last year, in 2011, he talked about the need for the united states to out-educate and out- innovate the competition globally. we can't -- we cannot win economically in the 21st century if we don't have the best- educated workforce. that's our competitive advantage.

even though -- one of the reasons why we've seen a trend towards insourcing, american companies bringing jobs back to the united states, is when they look at all of the factors that go into deciding where to locate a factory or where to locate a business, other countries may have lower labor prices, but we have a skilled, educated workforce that can bring great value to american businesses, as well as international businesses. we have to keep that up. so he's very committed to education. yes, norah. >> can i return to syria? you were talking about the "friends of syria" meeting that will happen later this week, and part of the goal is making the opposition more "functional" is the word you used. what do you mean, and how would

we help make the opposition more functional? >> well, we would work with the "friends of syria" to help stand them up, to cement its organizational capacity, its unity, so that there is an entity in place as this inevitable transition occurs -- because, as we've said in the past, it's not a question of if, but when assad gives up the reins of power in the syria. so we will do that, working with the "friends of syria," working with this broad coalition of members of the international community who are committed to the syrian people, to their right to a democratic transition, and strongly condemn and oppose the brutality of the assad regime. >> so some ngos are calling for recognizing the opposition as a transitional government. is that something that the u.s. supports? >> well, i don't want to get

ahead of the process here. i think that helping to organize and unify the opposition is something that we are doing in cooperation with our international partners. this is an entity that is emerging as the brutality of the assad regime continues, and so i don't have a timeframe on if or when something like that would happen. but right now we're just working with the "friends of syria" to help them organize, help them unify. >> can i get you to clarify remarks out of both the white house and the state department yesterday -- if pressure on assad does not work, are we considering arming the opposition? >> i want to be clear that our position is that it is not appropriate now to contribute to the militarization, the further militarization of syria. what i said and i think what was said in the state department

was simply to make clear that we don't rule out additional measures if the international community waits too long and doesn't act decisively. but that is not -- i'm not hinting at imminent action or change. our position is that it is not appropriate to contribute to the militarization of syria, that there is opportunity still now for this process to result in the departure from power of assad and a democratic transition to begin to take place. >> there are estimated 100 civilians that were killed in the city of homs yesterday. why would we intervene on behalf of the rebels in libya and not help those in syria? >> well, that's an excellent question and i attempted to answer that a little bit earlier, but you ask it more directly, so i'll try to address it. the comparative is useful in that it demonstrates why it is important to not have a one- size-fits-all approach, because the situations can be different

even though the broader unrest in the region obviously is similar or reflects an overall trend in the region. in libya, as you recall, there was support at the international level, broad support of the united nations security council resolution. there was a request from the libyan opposition and the libyan people for direct military intervention, outside military intervention. and, most importantly, there was the opportunity identified by the president and other leaders, and military leaders of nato, to have the dramatic impact of preventing a massacre in benghazi. there was a city coming under assault by qaddafi forces. and the situation in syria is different in all of those particulars that i just laid out. again, we're not ruling stuff out in the future, ruling actions out in the future.

but right now, we believe that the right approach is not to contribute to the militarization, and to pursue a path of pressuring assad, isolating assad, and furthering along the process that will ultimately lead to him stepping down or no longer being in power. >> and then finally, would we support and help establish a safe haven? >> for? >> within syria? >> well, again, we don't believe that military action is the right course -- contributing to the militarization of syria is the right path right now. we are, through humanitarian assistance and pursuing the provision of humanitarian assistance, pursuing the international effort to assist the opposition in organizing itself and unifying itself.

but in terms of a military action to secure a part of the country, that is not currently a policy we're pursuing. yes. >> jay, thanks. on iran, as you know, the iaea inspectors returned, basically saying that they felt their trip was unsuccessful. what's the white house's reaction? and to what extent does this compound or add to the tensions that are already there with iran? >> well, we regret the failure of iran to reach an agreement this week with the iaea that would permit the agency to fully investigate the serious allegation raised -- allegations, rather, raised in its november report. it's important to note that the iaea maintains regular access to both of iran's enrichment facilities at qom and natanz. the iaea was seeking additional access -- that's what this visit was about -- in line with iran's safeguards obligations, to sites and facilities where iran is suspected of conducting work related to weaponization activity. so, unfortunately, this is another demonstration of iran's refusal to abide by its

international obligations. we will continue to evaluate, working with our p5-plus-1 partners, the letter in response -- that we received from the iranians in response to lady ashton's letter about the possibility of engaging in talks. but this particular action by iran suggests that they have not changed their behavior when it comes to abiding by their international obligations. >> on the tax reform plan, as you know, republican presidential candidate mitt romney is giving his own economic speech today in which he's going to talk about his tax reform plan. he was initially going to give that speech on friday and he moved it up. but was the timing of today's announcement in any way meant to preempt the unveiling of that speech? >> well, no. in fact, i think we've been saying for quite some time now that our corporate tax reform

proposal would be put forward at the end of the month, roughly within the timeframe of the submission of the budget. so we've kept to that schedule. perhaps others are timing their announcements around ours. but this is something that secretary geithner has been working on with the white house economic team and the treasury team for quite some time, and we identified this time period as a time to release it a number of weeks ago. >> and also, tonight is the 20th republican presidential debate, potentially the last presidential debate. given that, will the president watch tonight? i know you've said he hasn't in the past. does he have any plans to watch this final -- >> so the question is why is this night so different from any other? >> exactly. >> i didn't ask him today, this morning if he planned to watch it. i suspect, knowing him, knowing his viewing habits, that he will not watch it.

he has a family at home. he tends to, when he watches tv at all, it's either sports or a movie. so i don't expect he will. but the president obviously keeps up with what's in the news and will, i'm sure, be aware of the general back-and- forth in the debate come tomorrow morning. >> given that the president is going to face off with one of these candidates, isn't it important for him to see the debate and not just -- i know you said he's read about the debates. but i mean, isn't that a part of understanding the strategy -- >> well, i think there is ample time between now and early november for him to prepare for what will be debates with his opponent once that opponent emerges from this process.

i think -- we're not pushing up against a deadline here. i think he'll be prepared when that time comes. he might look at a little tape when that time comes. but for now, i think he'll continue his practice of finding something better to do. yes. how are you, mara? >> just to clarify what you said to norah, you said syria is different, and then you listed all the criteria that made libyan opposition the correct choice. so if there was an imminent massacre in syria, then you'd be considering -- >> there are ways to speculate about individual things, conditions that might be in place. what was the case in libya is that all those conditions were in place that created an opportunity where international, outside military action to prevent the slaughter of civilians, to enforce a no- fly zone, was an option that the international community could take. so my point in making that comparison is that it was those -- that set of circumstances that made that option achievable, and that is the one the president pursued with many, many international partners, very importantly, including countries from the region.

so i'm just making the distinction because it's easy to say, well, you did this in that country why don't you do it in this? and it's important to recognize the different circumstances. >> you're saying right now none of those things are -- >> well, there was not a united nations security council resolution passed. there's a different military situation on the ground, if you will, and just different circumstances in general. >> and also to follow up on jessica's question about tax reform -- you said that the president's principles on individual tax reform are as clear as well. does that mean he also wants to lower rates and broaden the base there, too? >> well, his principles are clear. they are the buffett rule, as you know and you've heard him and i and others talk about. you haven't heard "i" talk about it, you've heard "me" talk about it -- that's just correct grammar. >> that's not really tax reform, though.

>> well, certainly it is. it's -- >> -- raising taxes on one individual -- >> no, no, no. it's ensuring that millionaires and billionaires don't pay a lower effective tax rate than average, working americans. he has made clear that his approach to tax reform would ensure that those making under $250,000 a year will not see their taxes go up. that is a principle. he is committed to the expiration of the high-end bush tax cuts. so the set of principles that he has put in place in terms of the individual tax code could very well be translated into individual tax reform. so he's spoken at length about the individual tax code and he has put forward a framework for corporate tax reform. obviously, this is the kind of thing when people ask me about why executive actions and "we can't wait," this is the kind of thing that a president can't do on his own. he needs congressional cooperation, and he looks

forward to having it. >> well, what i'm confused about -- you just listed the president's views on certain tax policies. when people say tax reform, they generally mean broadening the base and lowering rates. that's not what you're talking about when you talk about individual tax reform the way you are with corporate tax reform. >> well, i'm not sure i agree with your premise that tax reform follows that formula. >> -- the president is less progressive -- >> that is the formula that applies to the president's approach, which is an approach shared by many others to corporate tax reform. the approach that the president has taken on individual tax rates is that we should not have a tax code that's skewed to benefit -- through the carried interest rule or other itemized deductions, other means that allow for millionaires and billionaires to pay a lower effective tax rate than average americans. he does not believe that folks earning up $250,000 -- families earning up to $250,000 should

see their taxes go up. he does believe that those making more than $250,000 should see their taxes go up because the unaffordable bush tax cuts for high-income americans need to expire at the end of the year. >> right. but even those principles, does he believe in broadening the base and lowering rates in general? keeping all the progressivity you just mentioned, does he believe that that is what we should do -- >> well, i think that progressivity is an important principle here, and that's one that is reflected in his embrace of the buffett rule and his embrace of expiring -- making sure that the higher-end bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year. >> what about broadening the base and getting rid of deductions? because the president has -- >> well, the president has put -- >> -- take another question. >> yes, let me get some others here. i think, mara, you know we have

put forward proposals in the past -- last summer and fall -- that included limiting itemized deductions for high-income americans. that's a way of a broadening the base. eliminating the carried interest rule is a way of broadening the base so that hedge fund managers who are simply earning income don't pay a capital gains rate, they pay at an income tax rate. so i think this president has put forward both on paper and through speeches quite a bit of information about his approach to individual taxes. laura. >> on corporate tax reform, are you comfortable with the idea that while you are closing certain corporate loopholes, this -- your proposal does in its own way pick winners and losers in the sense that there are new advantages for manufacturers and clean energy makers? >> we are comfortable with an approach that eliminates a huge amount of the complications, loopholes, special provisions, subsidies from the tax code, and focuses the tax code on growing the american manufacturing sector, growing the advanced manufacturing sector, and assisting small businesses,

which are, after all, an important engine of economic growth and a hugely important engine of job growth in this country. so, yes, we believe that we need to eliminate a lot of the existing complexities from the tax code, and then identify very clearly what our priorities are when it comes to manufacturing, advanced manufacturing and small businesses. >> so you kept saying, in response to the questions about gas prices, that we need to insulate ourselves against these higher prices and world events, et cetera. yet you've explained how domestic production is at a high level and it's doing apparently very little to insulate us on the world oil market. so my question is, are you -- if we do continue to pursue obama's sort of all-of-the-above policies and accomplish the things that the president is seeking, will that be enough to counter what's happening in the world oil markets?

will what he's suggesting lead to lower gas prices? >> well, what this president is pursuing -- the policies that he's already put in place and the policies that he is pursuing will do is reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. and by definition, that will create a situation where we have greater energy security in the future than we have had in the past. i can't predict what oil prices will be in a year or two years or even six months. i would be careful of anyone who says they can. but what we can do through policy is increase our domestic production of oil and gas, increase our overall domestic sources of energy, including alternative energy, and thereby insulate ourselves from some of the shocks that come in the future.

but that doesn't mean -- >> that doesn't take care -- >> -- that doesn't -- what we know, for example, if through the car rule, the enhanced fuel efficiency standards that the president put into place, is that we will save $12 billion of oil because of that. >> barrels. >> barrels, sorry -- 12 billion barrels of -- this is the second time i've blown it. thank you, mr. henry -- 12 billion barrels of oil. that is a heck of a lot of oil. and absent those fuel efficiency standards, we know that we would be paying for that oil, and we would be paying for a certain portion of that we would be paying foreign providers of that oil. so these are important steps that we can take to insulate ourselves from energy shocks in the future. butre shaking your head, it's absolutely logical here. the more -- the less we rely on foreign oil, the less dependence we have, the more energy security we have.

>> but is that true? do you -- if we increase domestic oil production, doesn't it just go onto the world market with all the rest of the oil? it does very little to -- >> i think that we increase domestic oil and gas production, understanding that increasing domestic oil and gas production alone won't solve our energy challenges, it will mean that we can continue to reduce, hopefully, our imports of foreign oil, reduce our reliance on foreign oil. and thereby, when you have problems in a region of the world that produces oil, you are -- the effect on your own production -- your own dependence on that -- the reduction in your dependence on that insulates you from some of that shock. >> will that lead to lower gas prices? >> i'm not going to predict gas prices. what i know is that it increases our energy security. yes. >> jay, you took a question yesterday about secretary vilsack's comment about getting the oil companies, in his words, "to help ensure that the

recovery that we're now seeing is not jeopardized by energy costs that get out of control." what did you find out about that? >> you know what, i would refer you to the department of agriculture. i think what our approach has been is to, through the policies that i've been describing several times now, to work with domestic oil and gas companies to ensure that more -- millions and millions of more acres are available -- millions of acres are available for exploration in the gulf and in alaska and other places. we work with manufacturers in a variety of ways to ensure the smooth operation of a system here that provides oil and gas products to american consumers, but i don't think it was anything more specific than that. >> do you know of any specific concern -- >> no -- >> -- a new effort to get them to try to put a lid on prices? >> no, no, no, no. and i think that should not be interpreted that way.

i think this was more about the fact that we have a lot of consultation and dialogue to ensure that the overall system that produces and supplies american consumers is operating smoothly. >> in the florida speech tomorrow, is he going to specifically address the current price situation? is there going to be any kind of reassurance for people in this speech, which apparently is going to focus on energy? >> well, he will talk about the need to take an all-of-the-above approach. he will certainly talk about it broadly in terms of our energy security in the 21st century and our economic security in the 21st century as a long-term project. he'll, i expect, make reference to the rise in oil prices that we're experiencing right now and the anxiety that that creates and the impact that has on american families trying to make ends meet. he has been very clear about his concern about higher gas prices and higher oil prices, and what that means for american families. and he's been explicit about that in arguing for the payroll tax cut and the extra money that that provides to americans both

in 2011 and this year. so, yes, i expect you can hear him -- you'll hear him talk about that tomorrow. yes. >> jay, the president is going viral again by singing. is this by design? is it a reaction to polls? >> i think it's just -- it's a hidden talent that we're just getting to hear. it's not at all -- the circumstances both at the apollo theater and last night at the event here i think were pretty unique. so i can't predict -- the next time maybe at the inauguration next year. but what i can tell you is that among his -- >> it's only a matter of when. >> it will be a celebration.

no matter -- among his many talents is the ability to carry a tune. yes, sir. >> jay, on corporate taxes, you could find any number of polls suggesting average americans believe that corporations don't pay their fair share, that there are too many loopholes, too many breaks, et cetera. so why doesn't the president make more of a show of this? why doesn't he bang the drum a little bit about this issue when it could be politically positive for him? >> i think the president has been pretty explicit about his firm belief that there are provisions within the tax code that allow some corporations to be subsidized in ways that are just not affordable and are unnecessary. and i think oil and gas companies are a primary example and one that he's been beating the drum on for quite some time -- and that is included within this corporate tax reform proposal. he hasn't often been criticized for not speaking out on this issue because he's spoken out on it so clearly, and he will continue to do so. and that's how -- we've been clear about the carried interest

rule and why that is simply bad policy and why it needs to be eliminated. it's simply not equitable if a hedge fund manager or a private equity executive pays tax on his or her income at a rate of 15 percent when average folks are paying much more. that's just not -- it doesn't make sense and it's not affordable. we need to be fiscally responsible in our approach to the tax code. that's the approach the president has taken in this corporate tax reform, and it's the approach that guides his vision on taxes in general. yes, kate. >> house democrats sent the president a letter today asking him to release oil from the strategic petroleum reserve. is that something that's on the table? >> i haven't seen this letter

that you mention, but i'll answer that as i have in the past, which is i have no specific comments to make on that possibility. we obviously examine every issue when it comes to higher oil and gas prices. that was the case last year and continues to be the case. and we take no possible response off the table, but i have no specific comment to make on that. >> is there a price that you're looking at, though? >> no, i have no comment on that. >> on the buffett rule -- back to the buffett rule, governor christie -- any response to his remarks that warren buffett should just "shut up and write a check" in a tv interview last night? >> i think mr. buffett, who is widely regarded for his success in business as well as in philanthropy, has been quite outspoken, as is his right, on what he believes is

an issue of tax fairness. he simply believes, as one of the wealthiest men in the world, that he should not be paying an effective tax rate lower than his secretary. i don't know why the governor mentioned or others think that's a bad idea, but this president believes it's the right approach. >> do you think he should go ahead and write the check until that -- it becomes law? >> i mean, that's a quip that tries to draw attention away from what is a very serious issue, which is the need to have a tax code that's fair and that helps the american people as they recover from this recession, and helps us achieve the kind of balanced approach to deficit and debt reduction that this president has pursued for some time now.

so, quips aside, we think the buffett rule is absolutely an important principle to apply to individual tax reform. jared. last one. yes. >> rhetorically, when you're talking about the energy policy, the president has had this ground-up, comprehensive energy policy. but when we're talking about tax reform, it seems like what's coming from the podium is that there are these piecemeal things, we can do this on corporate tax reform, there could be more -- you said earlier -- on individual reform, if the congress is there for it. why is it not the same comprehensive, ground-up strategy? >> well, i think first of all, the corporate tax reform framework that was laid out today is fairly detailed, a.. b, if we could achieve some of these important policy objectives through executive action as the president did with close to a dozen automobile manufacturers in putting in place fuel efficiency standards that will save 12 billion barrels of oil, we would. but the fact is that in order to achieve corporate tax reform or individual tax reform or balance deficit and debt reduction, we need to work with

congress. and the way to do that is to put forward the kind of detailed framework that makes clear what this president's principles are, makes clear the path that he believes we need to take in reforming our tax code, and invite, as the secretary of the treasury has already done, democrats and republicans to work together to achieve that goal of lowering the rate, expanding the base, eliminating subsidies and loopholes, and creating incentives for american manufacturing and advanced manufacturing and small businesses to grow. >> earlier the president -- there was a statement from the president's office about observation of ash wednesday. is the president doing anything in particular during lenten season? is he giving anything up or is he doing anything special for it? >> i don't have any i