Bill Richardson | Talks at Google

Sa.

Okay.

14 years in Congress. UN Ambassador, Secretary of Energy, Governor of New Mexico. Negotiated with dictators in Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, Zaire, Nigeria, Yugoslavia, Kenya. Got a ceasefire in Darfur. Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize four times.

So.

What makes you think you can be president?

I'm Bill Richardson and I approve this message.

Tell me what you did as governor of New Mexico.

Well, I used tax cuts to help.

Create over 80,000 jobs. Yeah, I saw that.

A lot of those jobs are in high tech.

Helps the middle class up to 6.

In the nation for job growth, balance.

5 budgets, put over $600 million into classrooms, and cut school bureaucracy.

New Mexico was 46 in teacher pay. Now we're 29.

For what we're looking for, you might.

Be a little overqualified. I'm Bill Richardson and I approve this message.

Hi, everybody. I'm Elliot Schrag, vice President here at Google for communications and Public Affairs. I'm delighted, as part of our series, bringing elected officials and authors to Google to introduce our guest today, Governor Bill Richardson. I think we already know that he's way ahead of the game in terms of a sense of humor, in terms of the, of the political commercials that he's put out. We're going to, I want to take a couple minutes just to describe what we're going to do. We're going to have a conversation. I'm going to ask questions. I'm substituting for Eric Schmidt, our CEO, who unfortunately wasn't able to be here. He's not in town today. I'm going to ask questions for probably 20 minutes or half an hour, including questions that have been sent in from various Google offices around the country. And then we're going to open it up for another half hour or so to questions from this audience because we are being video cast to offices near and far. And because as is our custom, we're going to put a videotape of this event up on YouTube. I'd ask everyone to go to the microphone to ask their questions and feel free to ask questions on any topic near and dear to your heart. Based on the conversations and questions we've had in the past, I have no doubt that we're going to run the gamut of issues that a candidate might face. I'm actually very interested in really just beginning by learning a little bit more about your sense of how your experience relates to this presidential campaign in this particular season, because you have an experience both in domestic politics, but also internationally.

Well, the ad, the reason for the ad was at the time I was below the margin of error. Now we're, you know, we're moving. We're not yet at double digits. But the emphasis on the ad was this, this was the message. I'm not a rock star. I don't have gobbles of money or Googles of money. Is that pretty funny? But I've got experience, I've done it. In other words, one of the messages that I try to convey through the ad and in the campaign at a time when the media has already sort of picked three as the top tier and they cover their every move and although I'm moving, I'm not saying this is a complaint, is that, you know, the election of the next president should be about who can bring this country together because we're deeply divided. War in Iraq, immigration, energy policy, apart from whether you're a Democrat or Republican, that we're a nation adrift, we're with internationally enormously low standings. A war in Iraq that is a disaster, energy policy that doesn't exist. But also I'm a different kind of Democrat. I'm a pro growth Democrat. So what I'm trying to say is I've been a Governor, I'm a CEO, I balance budgets, I've helped kids be insured under 5, we've improved schools, we've become the clean energy state, although your governor disputes that pretty vehemently. But also internationally, the main challenges that affect the country, I've negotiated with foreign countries. I was just in North Korea a month ago. I think we made progress on their dismantling their nuclear weapons, but we also got the remains of six American soldiers back from the Korean War. 16 year old kids, you know, 45 years ago. I've negotiated with a lot of dictators around the world. Syria, North Korea, Kuwait, Iraq. I was in President Clinton's administration as UN Ambassador and Secretary of Energy. And he used to say, bad people like Richardson, we'll send them anyway. So what I'm trying to do is a message of competence, bipartisanship, actually doing something in terms of resolving problems. And that's what I'm trying to convey. And sometimes you also have to use a little humor because I think these political ads and I've used. I've been in politics a long time. I was in the Congress too. I hardly ever use negative ads. And I think politicians take themselves too seriously. So a little humor, a little humanity, you know, I also make about my weight, which is a constant. I'm not the only one that constant problem. But at the same time convey that, you know, there's A vision behind the resume that we need somebody that can bring a country that is deeply divided but also can fix problems. We got a lot of problems in this country, and probably the biggest are international.

So it's a perfect transition. So you have, in terms of a resume, in terms of a body of experience, a tremendous amount of exposure to international diplomacy, to working collaboratively with other governments. And I'd like to talk about, or I'd like to hear your thoughts of, given where we are today in Iraq, what should be the role of the international community, the United nations body, where you are, our ambassador, in addressing the situation there and moving towards some kind of resolution?

Well, I believe I have the clearest position on Iraq, and my solutions are international. You know, in fact, if there's one message in our foreign policies, we've forgotten an essential word. It's called diplomacy. It's called mediation. It's called negotiation. You know, our foreign policy today is preemption and military. And then maybe we'll talk about diplomacy. And that has damaged our image internationally, not just in Iraq, but in Latin America and Africa and Asia and the third World. I was just seeing here in your map, who is googling, you know, nothing's happening in Africa. There may be two. Nothing's happening in Latin America that much. Some in Asia, North Korea, where I just came from, not one. My point is that globalization has not affected in a positive way the whole world. Now Iraq, this is what I would do. And I've been there. I negotiated face to face with Saddam Hussein. I got a couple of prisoners back from there. It's in my book Between Worlds of Putnam 2895. I'm just kidding.

That's supposed to be probably available on Google Book search, but that's another issue. Look, if you get your plug in, I have to get.

All right, well, listen, so this is what I would do with Iraq. I would get out this calendar year out not. And I have no plan for residual forces, zero. Because I believe our troops have become the targets and this is a disaster. And other candidates will come to you and tell you, well, you know, you fulfilled this benchmark. This benchmark we get out this calendar year. If I were president today, obviously you've got to get the military to tell you how this is going, going to work. But I would also say to the Congress, and I served in Congress 15 years, be decisive, get votes that deauthorize the war. You know, today you'll read about the House and Senate had different versions, cut off funds after three months. Benchmark this, you know, this war was six years ago, justified on weapons of mass death, destruction. There aren't any. The American people want a change of course, they want a withdrawal. So I would have the Congress deauthorize the war based on the War Powers Resolution that says it's the constitutional authority of the Congress to declare war. Now what I would do is not just leave. You got to have diplomacy, you have to leave a structure behind. I would use the leverage of the withdrawal, the leverage to conduct what I'm kind of known for, diplomacy. Get the three religious groups in Iraq, the Sunni, the Shia, the Kurds, they hate each other. This is not going to be easy to come up with a coalition government, divide up the entity into three areas, divide Iraq into three, not states, but three entities, divide oil power, have a coalition government, divide energy ministries and all the other cabinet ministries and then come up with a structure, a political compromise where everybody gets a peace. Now you have to enforce that structure. I would have an all Moslem peacekeeping force, the Saudis, Turkey, Jordan, and I would invite Iran and Syria. I think our foreign policy has neglected talking to bad people. In fact, I once had a conversation with President Bush and I said, why don't you talk to Iran and Syria? You just talked to North Korea and you got something, you talked to them directly. They want to talk directly. They don't want to talk through China. And he said well I'm not going to talk to a nation that exhibits bad behavior. He said that to me and I said well, pretty soon we're only going to be talking to the Vatican. And that's not, you know, so I would bring Iran and Syria. They would be difficult. That wouldn't be easy. But I believe every country is interested in stability on their borders. Now what else? Why is Iraq so important? Our obsession with Iraq has cost us real foreign policy interests affecting this country. In other words, to forget about the real threats to us. It's not necessarily Iraq. It's threats of international terrorism which are real. It's nuclear proliferation. A loose nuclear weapon that is purchased by a rogue country or comes across the border. A loose nuclear material, uranium, plutonium, tribal and ethnic conflict. But also I believe a big national security issue is global warming. It's serious greenhouse gas emissions. The planet is saying to us, hey Earth, stop, stop this man made pollution, this overuse of fossil fuels. So not only is the project, is the policy flawed, but it's cost us real efforts to define what our main interests in foreign policy are. North Korea, Iran, Syria, issues relating to the Middle east peace process, globalization, poverty. I'd have a foreign policy that said Darfur is important. Why don't we care about Africa? Well, we always care about Iraq and Europe. Why don't we care about 4 million people in Darfur that have lost their homes and women that have been raped and 300,000 people that have killed each other in a war over oil and political power? Why don't we care? Because it's Africa.

Is that another place where diplomacy will make a difference? I know that you've been. You were there and you got a. You were able to arrange a ceasefire for 30 days. Is that a place where diplomacy or. Or perhaps, much as we might not like it, the threat of force or actual the presence of military forces might make a difference to enhance the power of diplomacy.

It's called American leadership. It's called having a foreign policy where you don't just care about what is most strategic, or are we going to protect our oil interests, or are we going to protect our economic interests? It's also thinking that if you build international support for your goals, which are noble, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions or stopping genocide, I mean, that's an objective.

Would you send troops to Darfur?

I would first use diplomacy. I would then use sanctions. And I got a ceasefire in 60 days. Now the ceasefire is over. And the reason you're saying, well, he's governor of New Mexico. What the hell's he doing in Darfur? You know why? I won't tell. No, I'll tell you. The Save Darfur coalition and asked me to go because I'd gotten a reporter out of Darfor six months earlier because I knew the leader of the Sudan. Parade magazine said, the world's worst dictator. And I sat down like this and I had his wife. He's a reporter, Chicago Tribune. He'd won the Pulitzer. Am I talking too much?

It's fine. I do have a couple of questions. But the. They're more interested in you.

So, you know, and I remember telling his spouse, I said, we're going to meet this guy who's considered the worst dictator of the world, and I know him, but we want to get your husband released. All right? I said, we got to get him released. And I'm going to make a pitch and we don't have too many cards, but I have one goal for you. This is a spouse. When I go like this, I want you to start crying. You know, humanitarian, diplomatic secrets to us here. And so I went like this. She was a professional woman, like all of you here. And so she had difficulty, but she did do all right. I said, Mr. President, look, you're not going to get. You're going to console this wife. You're going to get one day a press, good press, because this guy is a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter and is reporting about genocide in your country, which is taking place. Let him go. And he said, what do I get out of it? I said, you're going to get one day of press. All right, I'll let him go, but there's one condition. I said, what's that? He says, you stay. I said, wait a minute. He, you know, we connected. He was kidding, of course. Thank God. But so we got it done and then we talked to ceasefire, and, you know, it's very shaky. We made a. We helped a little bit.

But you talk about leadership. Is this something an American president should do as the leader of America? Is it something that we need to do in collaboration with others? What's your sense of, again, the role of the un? Kofi Annan, was he a successful.

He was good. He had a little accounting problem. I mean, he was not, you know, the un, it's a good place because it's a form for the Third World and the fact that you have an immediate opportunity to discuss a world crisis, and it's good that everybody's to get there. But it's really China, Russia, the us, Britain and France, they're the five permanent members that call all the shots. And the world has changed. There are other major players that should be part of the Security Council. India, a Latin American country, probably Mexico or Brazil, another Asian country, as I said, India, an African country. South Africa, Nigeria. The UN needs to find better ways to monitor itself. It's inefficient, a lot of pork there. But it's a good international institution and we can use it to advance our goals.

Should we have troops? Should we be willing to help, have our troops led by.

No, because they are targets. What we should have is a permanent UN force that countries contribute to. You know, the US shouldn't necessarily be excluded, but there are issues relating to US command, but they can be resolved. It should involve not just Muslim troops, because it's usually troops that don't have the funds and use it as balance of payments. We should expand the Security Council. But, you know, should a president intervene? Yeah. I mean, does that mean he goes and negotiates directly with Bashir? Yeah. Why not do it for NATO, do it for Iraq? I do it with Iran, I do it with Syria, if it helps the country, if it protects our people. If it has a measurable goal, you don't know. In a negotiation, you don't just do it to say you're talking and talking to somebody is not a concession. You can deliver a tough message. You can convey American intentions. But to exclude countries and say, we're not going to talk to you, you're not important, you behave bad, that hurts a lot of our goals. Now here's one area you haven't asked me that involves American leadership. You know what? On energy, we need to become energy independent. We need to find ways to reduce global warming. It's going to take an Apollo plant. It's going to take an American president saying this is a crash program. We're going to do it in 10 years. Having our dependence on foreign oil is not worth hurts us 65% imported oil. And what I would ask every one of you is that it's got to be a crash program that reduces our dependence from 65% to 10% in 10 years. And it's going to mean solar, wind, biomass, fuel cells, distributed generation.

Oh, sorry.

It means going green.

Carbon tax.

No. You know why? Because a mandated cap and trade program is more effective. A carbon tax is passed on to consumers. If you mandate and say that by year 2050, we're going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90%, that is far more effective than a carbon tax. Plus, I don't like taxes. I don't like to tax people. I am a believer. I'm a pro growth Democrat, an entrepreneurial Democrat. Innovation. Look at my state used to be last per capita. We've rebuilt our state by giving technology companies three years of no taxes. If you come into New Mexico, we will give you a tax credit. If you don't, if you pay over the prevailing wage. We've attracted movies and aviation and renewable energy companies. By co investing with those entities, I'd have a new economic policy in this country. Sorry, I.

No, no, it's okay. So you mentioned. So cap and trade is the approach you take for that. What incentives would you give for, you know, for individual consumers? What role could each of us as citizens play?

I would say to you, I'm going to ask you to sacrifice. I'm going to ask you to be more energy efficient in the way you live. I'm not going to say you've got to wear a sweater all the time and turn the heat down. But I'm going to say I would like you as Americans to realize that this is a national problem. You know, there's no sense of Community in the this country, it's everyone for themselves. I would say, you know, if you just every day think of something green that you might do, that you might be more efficient in lighting and air conditioning and washing machines. I see you got your, you know, your laundry here part of the tour. That's good. I would find ways where I would say to you, and I would give Google, I'd give you a tax incentive if you went green, if you had solar roofs, if you had. I would, because I think this has to be a national transformation and it's not mandates. But look, one of these days, what are you paying for gas? Close to four bucks. What if Iraq and Iran and Venezuela get mad at us and say we're going to choke America off? I mean, you don't want to have this dependence. And so reducing the fossil fuel dependence that we have, which is like an addiction, but with real concrete action, not just a little energy bill in the Congress, but massive tax credits, subsidies, government money. Yes. Entrepreneurial investment and renewable technology. Yes. Because you're going to create jobs. You're going to create high wage jobs. When you retrofit homes and have solar roofs in homes, that's going to be jobs for working people.

One of the things that's related that you mentioned is the idea that new technologies can help address some of these problems, particularly in the energy field. A lot of the people in this room are people who have strong personal as well as professional interest in building and developing technologies. What concerns do you have and what role would a Richardson administration play in promoting education, engineering, keeping people here who might come from other countries to develop their entrepreneurial skills and build their businesses?

Well, I'm a border governor, but I believe that immigration. We're a nation of immigrants. You know, I'm Hispanic. My Richardson name doesn't help, but. No, just kidding. But you have no Hispanics here, do you? Maybe.

Of course we do.

All right, you and me.

You actually lived outside the United States for a while.

I did. I was born in California. I lived in Mexico. Mother is Mexican. My mother still doesn't believe I'm a governor. She's 92. And I said, well, I'm running for president. He said, president of what? What?

Technology, education and engineering in particular?

I think that's the second biggest issue. The biggest issue is the war in Iraq. The second one for me is education. You know, I'll try to deal with science and engineering and I'll give you my speech about that. But you know, I think our high school curriculums are outdated. They're non competitive. They need to involve not just more science and math, but also languages. And they need to invite the arts because that will spur creativity in our people. I look at scores of high school graduates. China and India are scoring a lot higher than we are. They're producing more engineers. And I worry because that's competitiveness. What would I do about that? Well, I would start out, I'd offer preschool to every American. Preschool that's under 4. I think you got to start early. You make it voluntary, but it's based on whoever wants to take it. I'd have full day kindergarten. We don't have that in this country. I would create science and math academies 250 around the country. Take the kids and young people that might fulfill the greatest potential to become future engineers. And I would give them special training and priority. I would also, as I said, revise the high school curriculum. I would change our high schools so that instead of spending 65% as they do now, or 60 on administration and bureaucracy, think of your high school and how much the state contributed. 60% of that money goes to more staff, administration. I'd put it into learning, Advanced placement, teacher training. I think we pay our teachers terrible. I'd have a minimum wage for teachers, but I would have accountability standards, licensure standards if you're going to get more money. We did this in New Mexico. We went from 49 to 29 in teacher salaries, but they have to pass strict accountability standards.

But does the federal government. Can the federal government do those kinds of things?

Yes. Yes, it can. I would also set a national goal. I'm big on big goals. We don't think big anymore. Now, you all weren't born, but my hero was John F. Kennedy. He said, we're gonna go to the moon in 10 years. And we did. He also said that you gotta give to your country. You can't just do things for yourself. I would ask you to do both. I wouldn't ask you to go to the moon, but we have a spaceport in New Mexico, by the way, Commercial space. If you want to go on that, It'll cost you 200,000 bucks. We did that with Richard Branson and I was laughed at because we invested the state $200 million in that. But I believe in space, I believe in science. I think there are a lot of answers there that, you know. Instead we spend it on, well, don't get me started.

I want to go to some of the questions that. We received this earlier today from people in the remote offices and if people want to ask questions, they can start lining up at the microphone. One of the questions that we got from one of the remote offices was about fiscal responsibility. And it said, as president, what would you do to rein in significant government overspending?

All right, well, I'm a governor. Okay. So you're going to have all these candidates from the Senate. You know, they'll talk to you about balancing the budget. And I think you ought to be a little skeptical. All right, I have to balance budgets or I'm impeached. I balance five budgets. I run a state. So I believe it's critically important. It's also important for economic growth. This is what I would do. I'd have a constitutional amendment to balance a budget. Obviously, you don't do it in a time of recession or war, but I would do that. I would stage it. I'd have a line item veto as president. Any porky projects, you know, that a president thinks are porky out. I would also have what is called pay as you go policies. We had them in the Clinton years. If you're going to start a new program or cut a tax, you find a way to pay for it. Corporate welfare, you know, take away the tax benefits to countries that if you put a plan overseas, you now get a tax incentive. Now, you know, I'm pro industry, as I said, pro tax cuts, but I'd get rid of that. There's tons and tons in corporate welfare. I would redirect priorities. I think we can. Our defense budget, I think it can come down. I've never met a. A defense contractor that felt that. I never meant. This is my only partisan comment. No, I won't. I think there are a lot of defense systems that are not worthy of continuing. I'd increase the number of people in our army and our Marines, but, you know, weapons systems, outdated systems. This is a war against terrorism. You know, our nuclear weapons. I mean, my state, Los Alamos, you guys here, California. I mean, we don't need a modern new nuclear weapon. We want to redo. We should reduce our nuclear weapons and negotiate and find a way to have international regime that deals with it. What else would I do? I'd make some tough choices. I'd say, you young people, here are your three biggest threats. And even though I know a lot of you are very successful, I shouldn't say that. But here are the three threats to the younger generation. One, global climate change. That's huge for you. You better vote for politicians that have plans on that. Number two, the deficit. I mean, what you're going to your domestic priority. What's important to you. There may not be money left. Third is Social Security and Medicare, which you want to be interested in that because someday it's going to affect you. And if you read the latest report from the trustees, both funds are in jeopardy. You know what the answer there is? Bipartisanship. You got to find a way that on certain issues, national Security, Social Security, dealing with the deficit, you have to have Republicans and Democrats fix the problem. Otherwise it won't get done.

One other question from here, it's only appropriate that we ask, what do you use the Internet for the most?

BlackBerry. I'm a BlackBerry addict. I. So that I don't have to talk to my staff. You know, I use the. Okay, because, you know, you know what happened.

You know about Google Maps. But wait a sec. So let's. I don't know. Please.

Yeah.

Anymore. Or any other.

Well, no, I have my computer. I have. The good news about my campaign is that close to 20% of my funds have come online. So. So there's people out there that I like, bloggers, I like the use of the Internet. And by the way, I think you guys should be very careful. I would be. For what is called Internet neutrality. You should not go to bed with phone companies and others that want to take you over. All right? And be careful about that. You should stay free. You should stay unfiltered. And there's threats there. In fact, it's called a Congress.

We'll follow up. Actually, I have a couple of other questions on how you can be our government relations advisor. But question, question here.

So the reason I found out about your presidency is actually on a humor mailing list. And somebody sent out and said, this is a really funny political ad. And so I watched the first one. I thought, this is kind of funny. And I kind of like the guy and I liked it. So I clicked on a couple more, and after watching three or four, I thought, okay, this is good. I like him. Maybe I'd vote for him. Maybe I'd support him. And I couldn't tell if you were a Republican or a Democrat. I looked back at the answer like, oh, no, he's anti tax. He's small government. You know, you talked about the line item, clearly he's a Republican, but then it turns out you're not. And I should couch this because I don't want to come as an insult. I'm a Republican saying this. Why are you not a Republican?

Well, let me answer it in a. A nice way. In the hopes that I can get your vote. You know, I. Look, I'm not. I'm independent. I'm a Westerner. You know, I rail sometimes against some of my friends in the Congress, in Washington. You know, a political process that has become dysfunctional. There's a lack of civility. I just like to get things done. You know, cutting taxes worked for me in New Mexico, but we paid for them and we targeted them. And I believe this country is based on economic growth. And I don't mind renewable energy companies or you guys in Google. If you do something good to make money, that's okay with me. Now, I'm big on investing in people and healthcare and education. I guess you can call me a big spender there. But my main message to you is I'm bipartisan. You know, governors look at Schwarzenegger. Although, you know, I'm. He's a Republican. He's. He's been a good governor. He and I get along well. You know, we. We go a couple of rounds and that's supposed to be funny, but we both have, you know, we both have collaborated on clean energy initiatives in the west, so. So I just believe you got to be bipartisan. You can't just. There is no democratic social solution to the war. There is no democratic solution. On the environment, you know, the greatest environmental successes have been bipartisan. Our national parks. On immigration, you know, you gotta be bipartisan if you're gonna have a bill, comprehensive immigration. You know, I'd secure the border, but I'd also increase HB1 visas, which allow a lot of workers that we don't have. I'd also have a legalization program for the 12 million that are here. What are you going to do, deport them? You know, makes no sense. So let's find a way for an earned legalization and that. So if there's any message to you is I try to be bipartisan.

Next question.

So my question is on North Korea. So I should preface this by saying that my opinion of the policy over the past six years has been that it's been a very reactive one, which is to say that North Korea will rattle its saber and then Condoleezza Rice will say, well, we won't speak with them, and then finally they'll send you over. But. But my question is, would it be possible to have something longer term? Can we actually build a policy for North Korea? And if so, what would that be, rather than just diplomacy? Right. Diplomacy is more of a logistics of it. But what should the policy be?

The policy should be Something like this. And they've kind of. This is not original for me, but both administrations, Republican and Democrat, have thought something like this might work. Okay, North Korea, in exchange for North Korea dismantling its nuclear weapons, maybe they have six. And committing with proper oversight not to build any new ones, destroying their uranium plutonium facilities. Facilities. North Korea, you do this, and that's North Korea's big card. In exchange, this is what we will do. We being the U.S. china, South Korea, Japan, Russia, it's called the six party countries that have been negotiating. This is what we do for you, North Korea. One, we sign an armistice agreement, which basically means we won't attack you. North Korea is kind of interested in that. So that's one. And in addition to that, here's the poorest nation on earth. We'll give you food, we'll give you energy assistance, we'll lift sanctions. Your economy is a total disaster. We will try to encourage investment and bring you out of, not the 18th century like the 13th century. That is a framework where I believe, you know, you're not loving each other, you're not, you know, going to celebrate the end of the Korean War together, but you're at least living in some kind of stability. That's, I believe, what we should strive for. And that's what I would strive for. Hi, Governor Richardson, in your introduction, you said, I believe, quote, I'm not like other Democrats, I'm a pro growth Democrat. Do you really think it's fair to characterize other Democrats as being anti growth? And do you see any downsides to buying into what I would argue is that right wing frame? You know, I've been criticized for saying that. No, I don't mean that they're not pro growth. What I mean is sometimes we're a party, and this has been in the past that has said, okay, this is how we're going to resolve this problem. We're going to tax and we're going to talk about class warfare. I'm not into that. And I just believe. And I was attacked. You know, one of the other candidates said, well, you know, Governor Richardson's health care plan. And I believe that my health care plan involves not taxing people. I think we got to fix the existing plan. And that other candidate said, anybody that tells you that we don't need to tax for national health care, we'll sell you a Brooklyn Bridge. You know, so I felt, okay, so I'm being attacked for this. You want to have a ceasefire on this, fine. So what I'm saying is that too often we have lost that mantle of being, you know, call us the Atari Democrats, the pro growth Democrats, Bill Bradley, you know, Al Gore for a bit. And if you look at the traditional solutions on so many of our problems, our national posture at conventions, it's not as pro growth as I want it to be. So, you know, don't take it wrong. But if you do, that's where I stand. I'm not going to, you know, I'm not going to agree to every party orthodoxy. I'm not in this race to, you know, to get a ribbon from the Democratic National Committee. I'm in there to change this country and to make it try to make it better and to sponsor good debate. I don't think I'm going to get him. But anyway.

But you may get him, Larry.

So first, if I may, I'd like to reserve the right for a brief but friendly follow up. So, Governor Richardson, I appreciate your time taking to visit here and I believe in choice. So I will give you the choice of three topics for your question to do you want a question on immigration, health care or science?

Whatever you want.

Health care.

Okay.

So your health care plan attempts to provide universal health care for all citizens through federal programs, access to pooled health plans, tax credits and employer coverage. It does not mention, however, non citizens and possibly the homeless. How will those last two groups receive coverage and how will those costs be paid for under your plan?

All right, well, here's another thing that I like to say. You know, you ask these questions, I've done it. I give health care to the homeless. I give health care to immigrants. I give licenses to immigrants, driver's licenses. I give scholarships to immigrants in my state. You know why? Because I want to bring them out of the shadows. Maybe it won't get me many votes here in California. California. But I believe that bringing individuals out of the shadows, giving them opportunity, you know, if you want to be perverse on driver's licenses, one, traffic fatalities reduce. Number two, insurance. Those that get licenses, at least they purchase insurance. If you want to be perverse, if you want to know where they are, at least you know where they are, right? And so our experiment in giving driver's licenses as his work. So that's what I would do. Now I would also do other things. One on immigration, one, I would tighten the borders. I certainly would double the number of border patrol agents. More technology at the border. I wouldn't do this stupid wall, you know, which doesn't work, which is a terrible symbol of the country, which the Congress wouldn't fund. I'd have a legalization plan. I would say if your employers and you knowingly hire illegal workers, you're going to get fined. I'd also talk to Mexico. You know, I know the president of Mexico. I was raised there. I'd say, hey, you know, you got to do something on your side to reduce the flow. You're giving maps to people, telling them the easiest place to go. You have a frank talk. It's called diplomacy. I would increase illegal immigration quotas. I got to live with this. You know, right now, two hours ago, I talked to the governor of Chihuahua. It's on my border. There's violence on my border. It's drugs. People are killing each other and that's because there's illegal traffic of people and that breeds illegal activity like drugs. I will protect my constituents and that's what I'm doing.

I just want to understand that. I understood your answer with respect to health care. So basically you're saying that would be paid for by the state, but it would be recaptured by savings. Or am I misunderstanding?

You want to hear my national health care? It's going to take five minutes. You want to hear it? Ok, this is what I would do. Okay, we're all paying for the uninsured. There are 47 million uninsured. Okay? We spent $2.2 trillion on health care every year, everybody. That's the budget. There is 31% of that healthcare budget is administrative costs. It's inefficiencies. There's no health information network technology, what you guys do, connecting patients and doctors. So it's like pork in a system that it's not direct care. So here are my principles on a national health care plan. One, no new bureaucracies. Two, if you have a health care plan and you're satisfied with it, I'm not going to mess with you. That's number two. Number three, everybody has to pay. Under my plan, it's like the Massachusetts plan, it's like the California plan where there's a share the employer, the employee, the federal government and the state. And that would cover that undocumented worker because everybody would have to get health care. What else would I do? I would focus on cost and coverage and prevention. Let me deal with some briefly, some issues that involve cost and coverage. One, I would permit everybody to buy into the congressional plan, which is the Cadillac of all plans, allow you to purchase coverage there. Number two, I would permit on Medicare, I would lower that to 55 and over. No, this is not a big worry of yours, but ask your parents. It's 65 today. That would cover more people. Number three, I would have a grand bargain. This is what we do in states. We handle Medicaid. I would say from now on, the federal government handles Medicare, and that is seniors and the disabled. And the states handle what are called the S CHIP programs, programs for kids and families. I would also say if you're a veteran today, you know, to get veterans health care, your parents or somebody you know that's in, they got to go to a veterans hospital to get health care. I would give them a hero's card for having served, and they can get health care anywhere they want across the street from a doctor, which a hospital they can't do. I would have a refundable tax credit. You mentioned that. But this would be money in advance for companies and people that would also can't afford health care but would get this tax credit. I would also have the concept of everybody pays. I would also say we got to focus on prevention because, you know, nobody, everyone says, oh, you know, we got to prevent. You know what I did in New Mexico, I banned junk food in schools. It's helping. I would do that nationally. I would have healthy lifestyles, promote healthy breakfasts for kids. I'd promote mandatory phys ed. I would say to Google and I don't know if they do this, I'll give you a tax inside incentive if you allow all your employees to work out, have gyms, go home and exercise to have healthier lifestyles. But I would give you an incentive.

We're already there.

All right, but you know, most of.

The country, our nutritionists may end up running for president.

All right, but you know, most of the country doesn't do it. I would focus more on stem cell research, on cancer research, on biomedical research. We should be a country that tries to discover. I would find ways, too, to deal with Alzheimer's, diabetes. Here's an example. 33% of Medicare costs is diabetes. It's obesity. We have no efforts to try to prevent them. So my point is that I would have universal coverage. I think we can do it, but we have to have a massive effort to redirect that 31% into direct care and take these other steps. And you know what? You need a bipartisan solution. You got to get the other side to buy into what you're doing. You know, if you think that other Democrats have a plan, you know, and I worked. I liked Senator Clinton. I was a Democratic whip at the time she unveiled her plan. But it Was too complicated to explain. I had to get votes for it and I didn't understand it. So you got to put it in simple terms and hers was a. I think a good plan. Then.

If you don't mind, can I.

Just do the brief follow up?

I think we're running out of time. Can we go to the next question? Thanks.

One thing first is to get on the record the reason we laughed when you suggested that we put solar panels on the roofs.

We sort of already did that here at Google. Yes, well, good for you. But the whole country doesn't.

True, but anyway, as for my question, let's assume that hypothetical that you're allowed to pick the next president of the United States. They have to of course be over 35 native born US citizen. And you can't pick yourself, any member of your family or anyone who has ever run for president or vice president. Who would you pick and why?

You mean as a.

You just get to appoint the president?

Does it have to be a human being that exists today? No, no, I'm asking.

I'll accept appointing one of our data centers.

What he said, I didn't do.

You.

Know, I, you know who. And actually the politician is going to come out in me. Okay. Lee Iacocca. Apparently my staff handed me a piece of paper, was on a national show. You guys know who he is. You are that aware, aren't you? He said that I was the most qualified candidate and you know, bless his heart. Anyway, I think we need somebody that you know. Here are the characteristics. One, you got to know foreign policy. You got to, you got to have values, you got to have business sense. You have to manage, you have to get things done. You got to have, I believe a vision of the nation's productivity. You got to have, you have to have run something. But most importantly, you have to have the ability to inspire. You know, I think I hear more people saying, you know, I want to be inspired. I'm ready to help in some of these solutions. Whether it's renewable energy, energy independence or global climate change or you know, let's stop this division on immigration. So those are the characteristics, you know, maybe Iacocca fits all of those.

Thank you.

You talked about Darfur. What about the rest of Africa? Even where there's not genocide, things aren't exactly great. Would you do anything different about third world poverty, aids? Would you maybe increase the foreign aid budget or change policy? Yeah, I would increase the foreign age budget. I don't see how we can afford not to. It would be aimed also at Reducing the hatred that exists towards us in the Muslim world. I have a real education plan there. But with Africa. Yeah. You know, I spent a lot of time as UN ambassador in Africa. You know how many tribal and ethnic conflicts are going on there? Wars? It's about six. Is the world reporting about them? No, it's African. Here's what I would do. I would have a focus on world poverty. What I would do is instead of present policies, World Bank, IMF is, oh, let's build this country big roads, big dams. What I would do is I'd focus on education, nutrition, renewable energy technology. I think that is huge exchanges in that area. I would focus on refugees. Most of the nation of Africa, 1/4 are refugees. What is it, 29% have AIDS, 28%. I mean, these are fundamental issues that involve American leadership. I would also. You know why Bono is so popular? Because he says, don't have international economic policies that focus on nations to create debt. You know, let's find ways that there's freer trade and freer access of materials. You know what else I would do? I would bring broadband. I would bring the Internet to Africa. I think it's pretty pathetic that Africa and Latin America have no broadband access. Is it because these countries are not creative? You know why? It's because they have no capital. Is because their leaders are not saying, hey, you know, we're going to have broadband in every village. So I would use our technology, which you're doing here. I would use you. I would ask you, I said, now Google, you know what I want you to do? I want you to go to Africa and set up broadband access here. And I'm not going to mandate you doing it. But you know what? I may give you a tax incentive to do it. And if not, you're doing the right thing. So you're helping.

Thanks.

I should say, I feel like I'm obliged to say after all these, it's fascinating to hear sort of your prescriptions because. Amazing. An amazing number of those are projects that are already percolating up either in terms of the programs and benefits we offer Googlers who work here or the programs that people who work here devote time to, either as part of their job or as called 20% time, sort of free time, where they're encouraged to think big thoughts and come up with big projects. There are a lot of people here, I don't know if they're in the audience who are very interested in working on expanding Internet access to people in Africa. And they don't even have a Tax incentive yet, so imagine.

So this isn't about Africa, but I'm curious as to what, if anything, you would do about the farm bill. It does tie somewhat into health care prevention, that sort of thing. Domestic policy.

Farm bill.

The farm bill. Right now, it seems like we're doing so much to essentially subsidize production of junk food. But I'm curious as to what, if anything, you would change there.

I don't know. You know, I did a little bit of negotiations, international negotiations. You know, we have a lot. We have too many subsidies. I believe in free competition. You know, I would say that I would have a national ban on junk foods, and that involves nutrition. I think the farm belt also feeds America. You know, I. One of my baseball coaches was a guy named Norman Borlaug. He started what is called the Green Revolution. He won a Nobel Peace Prize way before any of you were born.

He was a baseball coach?

Yeah, he was a Little League baseball coach.

Really?

Yeah.

Massachusetts.

Yeah. You know, I'm trying to get him to Iowa to do a little campaigning with me because, you know, the Green Revolution was developed in Iowa. Sure. So I think technology. But the specifics of the farm bill, what are the issues? I don't know. I mean, I'm not there. I'm working on my shtick. You know, I don't have it all down. Tell me, what was the answer you would have wanted me to give?

So I wasn't actually thinking of a specific answer, but I'd read an article in the New York Times maybe two, three months ago that talked about the relationship of obesity in the US to the way that the farm bill incentivizes corn production. Who was it?

Michael Pollan.

That sounds right. Michael Pollan. Yeah, I think so. And I thought it was a really, really fascinating article. So ever since, I've sort of been wondering what various presidential candidates would do about it.

Well, I'll get you an answer next time I send an email.

It's great.

I'll send you a Google. No, I mean an email.

We have time for one more. Gosh, they really are.

Let me. Adam, where's my guy? I have one staff guy. He falls asleep. Adam, get her. Get her. Because. No, no, no. You find her. Get her car.

We have time for one more car question. And so.

Or you know what? You can do five questions and I'll answer them all at once. Okay, fine. Go ahead.

To come back to Iraq for a second. You mentioned a diplomatic solution between the three major parties there, and these parties really don't like each other. So what happens if we pull out before they can come to an agreement or if the thing breaks down? Wouldn't a set date actually incentivize the strongest of the parties not to come to an agreement and just take it by force, whatever they need once we pull out?

Okay, that's one. Next.

Go ahead, take a whole bunch of questions and then.

Okay.

I appreciated your comment about the nation being split. It seems to me that happening in part because of the way political campaigns are run with so much emphasis on polarizing issues. I'm curious about your opinion as to whether that if that's true, if it's a permanent change or if it's something that might become less so at some point and how that affects your campaign.

Okay.

I just want to know general thoughts.

And positions on world trade, on the Doha Rounds, and that's sort of a broadening in some ways of the foreign subsidy issue because that's. Many people see that as the main thing hindering world trade talks and on world trade deals versus bilateral trade agreements.

Okay.

The follow up, I'll be visiting your fine state this July. And I was just curious as a tourist, what one or two events or places in Santa Fe you would recommend.

There we go. I think that makes it an official government trip now. Okay, last question, and then we'll let you give some answers.

Hello.

I was curious about your position on nuclear energy and how you saw us developing energy independence in 10 years without it.

Okay.

Or with it.

You just hadn't mentioned it as part of the.

I understand. All right. Iraq pullout. My plan is not a guarantee of success. My plan, I believe, can build a framework that gives Iraq, I believe, a fair chance of survival. It's called diplomacy. It's called withdrawing with honor and diplomacy and a plan, international engagement, international leadership, the US Saying, hey, you know, we're, we're pulling out. We've got to find a way collectively. I would still use American air power. I would still deploy some forces of ours out of Iraq, in Bahrain and Kuwait where we have bases. I would still put some in Afghanistan in case there's a direct threat of some kind. So my pullout from Iraq is total, but it doesn't involve a pullout from the region. And the answer is this. Those military experts that say that to you, the administration experts that say to you, they're the ones that got us in this mess. You know, I've been there. I know how to get it done. They say, oh, it's going to cause a civil war. There is A civil war. There is sectarian conflict, you know, so let's try to fix the problem with a decent plan. And you can't do things halfway. You know, there are a lot of politicians there. You going to tell you, all right, energy development and protecting the environment, we can do both. You know what, sometimes you can't. Sometimes you can't drill in an ecosystem. And you sue and I've done that. You can't drill in ANWR in Alaska. This is a valuable. There are plenty of other places to drill in a clean and systemic way on polarizing issue. You know, look, I don't know what I can tell you. I'm not going to get negative, but I suspect I get the nomination and they start getting negative on me. I remember what happened to Senator Kerry. You know, he didn't respond when his brilliant war record was attacked and it hurt him. So I'm not admitting perfection there. I believe that what the American people want to see and why, by the way, those ads are very well received because they're human. You know, we take things too seriously and if anything, we're too negative. And I want us to be more positive, to offer solutions instead of just trashing the president on the World Trade Doha Round. I believe that it still has promise. And something just happened that I read in the New York Times two days ago, and that is the Democrats in the Congress may have had an agreement on trade agreements, South Korea, Peru and Colombia, because the Republicans agreed on the Democratic insistence in the trade agreement that there be environmental standards, that there be fair labor standards, collective bargaining commitment, no slave labor. So maybe one bipartisan issue seems to be, I won't say it's resolved, but it's promising. And that's trade events in the state. When are you coming? Are you coming soon?

July.

7-5-38. All right. Well, there's a great on July 4th, there's a great pancake breakfast in the square in Santa Fe. You should go to that. You know what you should also do? It involves the Native Americans. There are a lot of Pueblos. We have a number of Native American Pueblo. They celebrate their feast days, their religious days. A lot of them are in July. You should go to a couple. They're colorful, they're fun. They talk about cultures and talk about Native Americans, talk about forgotten people in America that don't get healthcare, don't get attention, not your generations. Way before you were pretty bad to the Indians and somehow the agreement was in return, we'll give you your health care and education because we took your Land and we stole your, you know, your traditions. That hasn't happened. That's a broken promise that as president I would try to fix. I don't know how, but I believe it deserves some nuclear energy. I'm not a fan. There's a personal reason and there's just policy reasons. One, what I like about nuclear energy, it doesn't emit greenhouse emissions. It doesn't. Secondly, they've gotten a lot cheaper to build. What do I don't like about them? One, we have not resolved the waste issue. In other words, what do you do with the waste of nuclear power plants? Nevada doesn't want it. All the sites that they're supposed to go to, high level don't want it. So the solution has been, all right, store them in regional areas. This is what I would do. I would say I would have our national labs find a solution, a technological solution to make the waste disappear or evaporate. I believe we can do it. Why can't we do it? We went to the moon. But you know, we're always shortsightedly thinking. The public is still a little worried about the safety issue of nuclear power plants. So I wouldn't say, all right, I'm anti nuclear, but I would say I believe the future is not coal, not dirty coal, it's clean coal. The future is not oil and gas. That's going to stay. I'm not going to ban it. Nuclear, I'm not going to ban it. But I think the future is renewable. Great promise in solar, wind and biomass and distributed generation in fuel cells and batteries. And you can have your SUVs with fuel efficient engines. And we can invest in biodiesel and biofuels and ethanol and produce a hybrid vehicle, 100 miles per gallon. You know what I would do as part of this energy bill? I would say in four years we got to go to 40 miles per gallon and in 10 years to 50, we got to do it. And we can do it. We have the technology to do it. It's just that our auto companies, oh, you know, we gotta build the big Bronco. And the public won't buy it. Yes, they will. The public is changing. And this is where I would ask everybody here, you know, in your comfortable world, and I commend you for it, to sacrifice a little bit for the common good. Where's a nuclear person? Let me just ask you, what do you think should be the future of nuclear?

You got to come to the microphone so that people can hear, please.

I entirely agree that as a long term solution, renewables are the way to go. I was just you had mentioned an Apollo project like approach where you get rid of, you really minimize the use of non renewables over the course or the use of greenhouse emitting, greenhouse gas emitting technologies over the course of the next 10 years. It seems to me that the, the cleanest technology that is here and ready to use right now is nuclear. And that's why I thought maybe in the short term you build nuclear plants and then in the longer term you focus on solar and wind and biomass and all the other exciting technologies that are still sort of gestational to some extent.

Well, if you look at the last energy bill, it passed two years ago in the Congress, they gave great preferences to nuclear, to coal and to oil and gas. I don't think they should have gotten that. I think it's close to $13 billion in subsidies. I think they should compete with the solar. Solar didn't get it, wind didn't get it, distributed generation didn't get it. So I just believe in a, not in an equal playing field. I think the future is renewable because it's going to create jobs, it's high wage, it's clean. Fossil fuels is what's gotten us into this mess. Now that's the positive side of nuclear. But you know, I believe you've got to be responsible. That's a good answer, huh? And I know that a lot of.

People have been saying long and I know we've gone over long. I was wondering if you had a brief statement you wanted to say at the end.

Well, yeah, yeah, I would. I appreciate this chance. I know I'm a dark horse in this race. Get it? Dark horse. I believe that I, you know, I don't have the money or the rock star status but at the same time I think I'm ready, I'm prepared. I've got the background, I've got the experience. But see, why is this important? It's important because you now live in California and you suddenly. California, you guys don't follow politics the way those of us here do. But you're important now. Do you know why? Because you're now an early primary. You're a February 5th primary. So politicians like me have often come here, both parties. California is like ATM machines. You're great for fundraising, but your primary wasn't until June. So you don't determine who the next president might be now you do. So I think the issues that affect you California issues. And by the way, you know, I would be a transportation governor. You guys have a traffic problem in this state. No, but a president should have land use policies, smart growth policies that find ways that Americans can live better. But a president, see, we have a role because there are federal highway Fund bills that put president's control. I would promote light rail, bullet trains. I would find ways. I mean, this is the way we are getting around people going to school, going to work, picking up their kids. I don't know how in Los Angeles and Nevada. This is a huge issue. Miami. So my point is issues like transportation, like water. We got to find ways to conserve water and transfer water and technologically reuse that technology. Quality of life, pro growth issues, immigration. I mean, you guys should. I'm surprised that just 3 of the candidates have come out here. You should ask all of them to come and give you their vision and make a judgment because you're so important. You were right after Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. And you could have several candidates falter in the first war, but then you could lift them. Nobody knows the effect that you will have. Some say that Iowa and New Hampshire are now that much more important because they'll propel such candidates into California. Others say, well, candidates with a lot of money that can advertise are the ones that are going to do better. I don't know the answer to that because it's the first time it's ever happened. Anyway, thank you for listening. I appreciate, appreciate all of you. And maybe you can think of voting for me. Thank you.